Graphene reinforced polyethylene terephthalate

ABSTRACT

A composition and a method are provided for graphene reinforced polyethylene terephthalate (PET). Graphene nanoplatelets (GNPs) comprising multi-layer graphene are used to reinforce PET, thereby improving the properties of PET for various new applications. Master-batches comprising polyethylene terephthalate with dispersed graphene nanoplatelets are obtained by way of compounding. The master-batches are used to form PET-GNP nanocomposites at weight fractions ranging between 0.5% and 15%. In some embodiments, PET and GNPs are melt compounded by way of twin-screw extrusion. In some embodiments, ultrasound is coupled with a twin-screw extruder so as to assist with melt compounding. In some embodiments, the PET-GNP nanocomposites are prepared by way of high-speed injection molding. The PET-GNP nanocomposites are compared by way of their mechanical, thermal, and rheological properties so as to contrast different compounding processes.

PRIORITY

This continuation application claims the benefit of and priority to U.S.patent application Ser. No. 15/073,477 filed on Mar. 17, 2016 and U.S.Provisional Application, entitled “Injected Molded Poly(EthyleneTerephthalate)-Graphene Nanocomposites,” filed on Mar. 17, 2015 havingapplication Ser. No. 62/134,482 and U.S. Provisional Application,entitled “Graphene Reinforced Polyethylene Terephthalate,” filed on Jul.8, 2015 having application Ser. No. 62/190,193.

FIELD

The field of the present disclosure generally relates to polymercomposites. More particularly, the field of the invention relates to acomposition and a method for graphene reinforced polyethyleneterephthalate.

BACKGROUND

Composites are defined as multiphase materials, which are found innature or may be man-made. Man-made composites typically are formulatedusing one or more materials so as to achieve properties that are notavailable individually. Composites may be classified based on type ofcontinuous matrix and dispersed phases, such as reinforcement. Compositematerials wherein one of the constituent phases, primarily the dispersedphase, has at least one dimension on the order of 1-100 nanometers arereferred to as “nanocomposites.” Nanocomposites may be furtherclassified based on category (e.g., organic or inorganic), as well asgeometry of nanoscale reinforcement. A few well-known examples ofnaturally occurring nanocomposites include human bone, seashells, spidersilk, and armored fish. As will be appreciated, each of these materialscomprises a structural hierarchy (structure at multiple length scales)which makes them perform exceptionally well as compared with othermaterials of a similar chemistry.

Material properties of composites are known to be dependent oninteractions between the matrix and the dispersed reinforcement. Largesurface areas per unit volume at the nanoscale generally causenanomaterials to function differently than their bulk counterparts. Withincreased interactions between the matrix and the dispersed phase,nanocomposites are considered relatively superior to conventionalcomposites, providing advantageously new properties without compromisingexisting beneficial properties, such as strength or durability.

Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) is an aromatic semi-crystallinethermoplastic polyester, synthesized in the early 1940s. PET is wellknown for its strength and toughness, high glass transition and meltingpoints, chemical resistance, and optical properties. PET is commonlyused for commodity and engineering applications also due to itsrelatively low cost. PET characterized by a microstructure whereinlongitudinal stretching forms strong fibers with high molecular chainorientation, as well as biaxial stretching forming strong films. LinearPET is naturally semi-crystalline. Thermal and mechanical history, suchas rate of cooling and stretching, respectively, can drive PET to beamorphous or more crystalline, and thus influence its mechanicalproperties. Although PET is utilized in industries such as fiber,packaging, filtration, and thermoforming industries, the use of PET isconstrained due to a slow crystallization rate and a limited barrierperformance as compared to other polyesters, such as PBT, PTN, and thelike.

As will be appreciated, there is a long felt need to develop lightweightmaterials for use across a range of industries, such as packaging,automotive, and aerospace, thus promoting attempts to improve materialproperties through better control of material processing and an additionof reinforcements. For example, increasing the crystallinity of PETimproves its mechanical and barrier properties. Restrictions with thematerial, however, such as crystallization rate, and industrialprocesses in maximizing crystallinity, such as cooling rate, cycle time,and stretching process, have limited attempts to improve the materialproperties of PET. Progress in the field of nanomaterials, however, hasled to a development of PET nanocomposites which have improved thephysical properties of PET, thus making PET more effective forapplications within the automotive, aerospace, and protective apparelindustries. Different types of nanoreinforcements (Clay, CNF, CNT,Graphene, SiO2, etc.) have been found to improve the material propertiesof PET, such as mechanical, thermal, barrier, electrical, fireretardation, optical, surface properties, crystallization kinetics ofPET, and the like.

Exfoliation of nanoreinforcements into individual entities and theiruniform dispersion into a polymer matrix is essential for the success ofpolymer nanocomposites. Uniform dispersion of nanoreinforcements inpolymers may be achieved by way of various approaches, including, butnot limited to, melt-compounding, in-situ polymerization, surfacetreatment of the nanoreinforcements, and the like. Carbon nanomaterials,such as carbon nanofibers, carbon nanotubes (CNTs), and graphenegenerally are advantageous due to their superior material properties andsimple chemistry. Multi-fold property improvements can be achievedthrough the dispersion of carbon nanomaterials into polymers

Graphene is a relatively new nanomaterial which comprises a single layerof carbon atoms similar to an unzipped single walled carbon nano tube.Single layer graphene generally is twice as effective as CNTs inreinforcing polymers since graphene has two surface for polymerinteraction whereas a CNT comprises only one exterior surface forpolymer interaction. It will be appreciated that a development ofgraphene synthesis methods in conjunction with an introduction of newgraphene-based nanomaterials, such as graphene oxide, expanded graphite,and graphene nanoplatelets, has made graphene commercially viable.However, limited information on the effectiveness of graphene-basednanomaterials has limited their application in fabricating polymernanocomposites. Thus, there is a need for investigating the influence ofgraphene nanomaterials in reinforcing polymers.

Melt-compounding and in-situ polymerization have been the most studiedtechniques for preparing PET-Graphene nanocomposites. Although in-situpolymerization is effective in dispersing graphene, the use of in-situpolymerization is limited due to difficulties in attaining a desiredmolecular weight and a need for expensive reactors. Melt-compounding isa straight-forward approach involving shear mixing, but that alone hasnot been found to be effective in dispersing graphene in the severalpolymer systems tested. As will be appreciated, achieving a homogenousdispersion of the nanoplatelets in PET is critical for improving bulkproperties. Dispersing graphene in PET is nontrivial, however, as PETgenerally is highly viscous (500-1000 Pas) with a melting temperature of260° C.-280° C. Thus, selecting a process that can allow working at hightemperatures and with highly viscous materials is necessary.

Another important aspect for the implementation of polymer nanocompositeapplications is an ability to predict their material properties so as toprovide flexibility in designing manufacturing processes and to reducedevelopmental costs. Traditional composite models are not accurate inpredicting the properties of nanocomposites. Although micromechanicalmodels based on continuum theory have been found to be effective inestimating short fiber composites, few studies have reported anapplicability of these models to nanocomposites.

What is needed, therefore, is an effective process whereby graphenenanoplatelets (GNP) may be uniformly dispersed in PET so as to reinforcebulk PET, and micromechanical models whereby the material properties ofreinforced bulk PET may be predicted.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

The drawings refer to embodiments of the present disclosure in which:

FIG. 1 is a chemical formula illustrating a molecular structure ofpolyethylene terephthalate in accordance with the present disclosure;

FIG. 2 is a graph illustrating a relationship between particle interfaceand size, according to the present disclosure;

FIG. 3 is a table listing properties of graphene obtained throughdifferent methods, according to the present disclosure;

FIG. 4 illustrates unique structure of carbon allotropes in accordancewith the present disclosure;

FIG. 5 is a micrograph illustrating carbon black nanoparticles used forreheat performance of PET, according to the present disclosure;

FIG. 6(a) is a micrograph of graphene nanoplatelets, according to thepresent disclosure;

FIG. 6(b) is a micrograph showing a presence of multiple nanoplateletsin an agglomerate in accordance with the present disclosure;

FIG. 7 is a chemical formula illustrating a molecular structure ofnanoplatelets (xGnP), according to the present disclosure;

FIG. 8 is a table listing properties of PET and master-batch pellets inaccordance with the present disclosure;

FIG. 9 is a schematic illustrating an ultrasound assisted twin-screwextrusion system in accordance with the present disclosure;

FIG. 10 is a schematic illustrating a process for preparation ofethylene glycol-graphene nanoplatelets in accordance with the presentdisclosure;

FIG. 11 is a schematic illustrating a reactor setup for an esterinterchange step, according to the present disclosure;

FIG. 12 is a chemical formula illustrating an ester interchange reactionbetween dimethyl terephthalate (DMT) and ethylene glycol (EG) to formthe PET monomer in accordance with the present disclosure;

FIG. 13 is a schematic illustrating a reactor setup for apolycondensation step in accordance with the present disclosure;

FIG. 14 is a chemical formula illustrating formation of PET polymerchain from monomer, in accordance with the present disclosure;

FIG. 14(a) is a table listing reaction times and methanol yield forrespective polymerization batches, according to the present disclosure;

FIG. 15 is a cross-sectional view illustrating an injection moldingcompatible tensile specimen, according to the present disclosure;

FIG. 16(a) illustrates a PET and master-batch pellet mixture from feedthroat 0.6% loading from Set B processing, according to the presentdisclosure;

FIG. 16(b) illustrates a PET and master-batch pellet mixture for 0 USMultrasound treated batch in accordance with the present disclosure;

FIG. 16(c) is a table listing details of PET nanocomposite samplesobtained by way of injection molding in accordance with the presentdisclosure;

FIG. 16(d) is a table illustrating a comparison of process pressuresbetween PET and nanocomposites from ultrasound treated master-batches,according to the present disclosure;

FIG. 17(a)-(b) illustrates visual signs of poor mixing, as observed for0.5% GNP nanocomposites, in accordance with the present disclosure;

FIG. 18(a) illustrates a micro-compounder with co-rotating twin screws,in accordance with the present disclosure;

FIG. 18(b) illustrates a micro-injection molding system and transferdevice, in accordance with the present disclosure;

FIG. 19(a) illustrates a dual dog bone mold used for making tensilesamples in accordance with the present disclosure;

FIG. 19(b) illustrates molded PET tensile bars, according to the presentdisclosure;

FIG. 19(c) is a table listing process parameters for tensile bars madeby way of a micro-injection molding system in accordance with thepresent disclosure;

FIG. 20 is a schematic illustrating a capillary viscometer in accordancewith the present disclosure;

FIG. 21(a) illustrates testing of a nanocomposite tensile bar inaccordance with the present disclosure;

FIG. 21(b) illustrates a tube testing fixture, according to the presentdisclosure;

FIG. 21(c) illustrates tube testing, according to the presentdisclosure;

FIG. 21(d) illustrates testing of tensile bar from a micro-injectionmolding system, in accordance with the present disclosure;

FIG. 22 is a schematic illustrating a parallel plate geometry and apolymer melt in accordance with the present disclosure;

FIG. 23 is a schematic illustrating a sample geometry with respect to aninstrument geometry, accompanied by a 2D X-ray diffraction frame,according to the present disclosure;

FIG. 24 illustrates a location of samples collected for nano-tomographyand diffraction analysis, according to the present disclosure;

FIG. 25 is a schematic illustrating a CT scanner and a process for X-raycomputed tomography in accordance with the present disclosure;

FIG. 26 is a graph illustrating a weight average molecular weight of PETand PET nanocomposite pellets in accordance with the present disclosure;

FIG. 27 is a graph illustrating an intrinsic viscosity measured for PETand ultrasound treated PET, according to the present disclosure;

FIG. 28 is a graph illustrating a comparison of intrinsic viscosity forPET and PET nanocomposites, according to the present disclosure;

FIG. 29 is a graph illustrating a viscosity of pellets obtained by wayof in-situ polymerization in accordance with the present disclosure;

FIG. 30 is a graph illustrating engineering stress-strain curves for PETand PET-GNP nanocomposites, according to the present disclosure;

FIG. 31 is a graph illustrating Young's modulus and tensile strength ofnanocomposite tensile bars in accordance with the present disclosure;

FIG. 32(a) illustrates a PET tensile bar, according to the presentdisclosure;

FIG. 32(b) illustrates a PET-15% GNP tensile bar after testing inaccordance with the present disclosure;

FIG. 32(c) illustrates PET-GNP tensile tubes stretched and a brittlefailure, according to the present disclosure;

FIG. 33 is a graph illustrating modulus and tensile strength of PET andnanocomposite tensile tubes in accordance with the present disclosure;

FIG. 34 is a graph illustrating engineering stress-strain curves ofnanocomposite tensile tubes compared with tensile bar, according to thepresent disclosure;

FIG. 35 is a graph illustrating Young's modulus and tensile strength ofultrasound treated PET (horizontal axis—ultrasound amplitude) comparedwith PET control in accordance with the present disclosure;

FIG. 36 is a graph illustrating ultimate tensile strength of ultrasoundtreated PET (horizontal axis-ultrasound amplitude) compared with PETcontrol, according to the present disclosure;

FIG. 37 is a graph illustrating modulus and strength of ultrasoundprocessed nanocomposites with 2% GNP, according to the presentdisclosure;

FIG. 38 is a graph illustrating modulus and strength of ultrasoundtreated nanocomposites with 5% GNP compared with PET control andtwin-screw compounded nanocomposite, according to the presentdisclosure;

FIG. 39 is a graph illustrating Young's modulus and strength data forin-situ polymerized PET and nanocomposites in accordance with thepresent disclosure;

FIG. 39(a) is a table listing tensile strength and specific strength fornanocomposite tensile bars, in accordance with the present disclosure;

FIG. 39(b) is a table listing tensile strength and specific strength fornanocomposite tensile tubes, according to the present disclosure;

FIG. 39(c) is a table listing tensile strength and specific strength ofnanocomposite tubes from an ultrasound master-batch, according to thepresent disclosure;

FIG. 40(a) is a micrograph illustrating voids on a fracture surface ofnanocomposite tensile bars with 5% GNP weight fraction, according to thepresent disclosure;

FIG. 40(b) is a micrograph illustrating voids and a crack initiationpoint on a fracture surface of nanocomposite tensile bars with 10% GNPweight fraction, according to the present disclosure;

FIG. 41(a) is a micrograph illustrating a fracture surface of 2%nanocomposite tensile tube with a highlighted area showing signs of“ductile fracture,” in accordance with the present disclosure;

FIG. 41(b) is a micrograph illustrating a failure of the micro fibrilformed from elongation within the highlighted area of FIG. 41(a),according to the present disclosure;

FIG. 42(a) is a micrograph illustrating a nanocomposite tensile barfailure surface at 2% weight fraction, according to the presentdisclosure;

FIG. 42(b) is a micrograph illustrating a nanocomposite tensile barfailure surface at 5% weight fraction in accordance with the presentdisclosure;

FIG. 42(c) is a micrograph illustrating a nanocomposite tensile barfailure surface at 10% weight fraction, according to the presentdisclosure;

FIG. 42(d) is a micrograph illustrating a nanocomposite tensile barfailure surface at 15% weight fraction, according to the presentdisclosure;

FIG. 43 illustrates ultrasound micrographs of PET and PET nanocompositetensile bars wherein an arrow indicates an injection flow direction,according to the present disclosure;

FIG. 44 is a graph illustrating GNP weight fraction vs. glass transitiontemperature (T_(g)), melting temperature (T_(m)), and crystallizationtemperature (T_(c)), with an error on temperature measurements of 0.5 oCin accordance with the present disclosure;

FIG. 45 comprises a left-hand graph illustrating crystallizationhalf-time of PET nanocomposites, measured within 0.05 min, and aright-hand graph illustrating percent crystallinity of PETnanocomposites, accordance with the present disclosure;

FIG. 46 is a graph illustrating crystallization exotherms for PET andtwin-screw compounded PET nanocomposite pellets, in accordance with thepresent disclosure;

FIG. 47 comprises graphs illustrating glass transition and meltingtemperatures for ultrasound treated PET and PET nanocomposite pellets inaccordance with the present disclosure;

FIG. 48 is a graph illustrating melting curves (second heat) ofultrasound treated PET, according to the present disclosure;

FIG. 49 comprises a left-hand graph illustrating crystallizationhalf-time (measured within 0.05 min) for ultrasound treated PET andPET+5% GNP pellets, and a right-hand graph illustrating crystallinityfor ultrasound treated PET and PET+5% GNP pellets in accordance with thepresent disclosure;

FIG. 50 comprises graphs illustrating crystallization temperature andpercent crystallinity for in-situ polymerized samples, according to thepresent disclosure;

FIG. 51 is a graph illustrating storage modulus of PET and PETnanocomposites with respect to angular frequency in accordance with thepresent disclosure;

FIG. 52 is a graph illustrating shear modulus vs. GNP weight fractionand a suggested percolation threshold in accordance with the presentdisclosure;

FIG. 53 is a graph illustrating storage modulus of ultrasoundnanocomposites compared with PET and twin-screw nanocomposite inaccordance with the present disclosure;

FIG. 54 is a graph illustrating a dynamic sweep of storage moduli fordifferent PET samples, according to the present disclosure;

FIG. 55(a) illustrates a transmission micrograph of 15% nanocomposite inaccordance with the present disclosure;

FIG. 55(b) illustrates a transmission micrograph of 15% nanocomposite inaccordance with the present disclosure;

FIG. 56(a) illustrates a transmission micrograph of 5% nanocomposite,showing few layer graphene, in accordance with the present disclosure;

FIG. 56(b) illustrates a transmission micrograph of 5% nanocomposite,showing few layer graphene, in accordance with the present disclosure;

FIG. 57(a) illustrates a transmission electron micrograph of 15% PET-GNPnanocomposite, according to the present disclosure;

FIG. 57(b) is a binarized micrograph suitable for analyzinginterparticle distances, according to the present disclosure;

FIG. 58 is a graph illustrating interparticle distance vs. GNP weightfraction with a dashed line representing a comparison of experimentaldata with theoretical trend in accordance with the present disclosure;

FIG. 59 is a graph illustrating X-ray diffraction patterns for GNPs,PET, and nanocomposite tensile bars in accordance with the presentdisclosure;

FIG. 60(a) illustrates an X-ray diffraction scan along a cross-sectionof a PET tensile bar, according to the present disclosure;

FIG. 60(b) is a graph illustrating X-ray diffraction patterns of theline diffraction scan of FIG. 60(a), according to the presentdisclosure;

FIG. 61 is a graph illustrating X-ray diffraction patterns at amultiplicity of depths within a 3-mm thick 15% nanocomposite tensile barin accordance with the present disclosure;

FIG. 62(a) illustrates a reconstructed 3D volume of 15% nanocompositewith a boundary size of 240 μm×240 μm×163 μm, according to the presentdisclosure;

FIG. 62(b) illustrates nanoplatelets within the nanocomposite of FIG.62(a) indicating an orientation of platelets along an injection flowdirection (Z-axis) in accordance with the present disclosure;

FIG. 63(a) illustrates a sample mounted onto a rotating pin wherein across mark indicates an injection flow direction, according to thepresent disclosure;

FIG. 63(b) illustrates a distribution of nanoplatelets from an insideedge of a 2% nanocomposite tensile tube in accordance with the presentdisclosure;

FIG. 64 is a graph illustrating Raman bands corresponding to C—Cstretching for PET and PET nanocomposites, according to the presentdisclosure;

FIG. 65 is a graph illustrating a shift in the Raman band correspondingto C—C stretching with an increase in GNP weight fraction in accordancewith the present disclosure;

FIG. 66 is a graph illustrating predicted modulus of PET-Graphenenanocomposites as compared with experimental results in accordance withthe present disclosure;

FIG. 66(a) is a table listing properties of GNP and PET formicromechanical model based predictions in accordance with the presentdisclosure;

FIG. 67 is a graph illustrating a comparison of nanocomposite experimentbehavior with theoretical predictions wherein E_(m) is a matrix modulus,E_(r) is a GNP modulus, and A_(f) is an aspect ratio(diameter/thickness), according to the present disclosure;

FIG. 68 is a graph illustrating load extension curves for ultrasoundtreated PET compared with a PET control in accordance with the presentdisclosure;

FIG. 69(a)-(b) is a schematic illustrating a doubling of nanoplateletsof the same size affecting a polymer matrix, according to the presentdisclosure;

FIG. 70 is a graph illustrating an increase in elastic tensile moduluswith respect to GNP weight fraction in accordance with the presentdisclosure;

FIG. 71 is a graph illustrating an elastic region of stress-straincurves for nanocomposite tensile bars, according to the presentdisclosure; and

FIG. 72 is a graph illustrating a comparison of Young's modulus forPET-GNP nanocomposites with and without ultrasound treatment inaccordance with the present disclosure.

While the present disclosure is subject to various modifications andalternative forms, specific embodiments thereof have been shown by wayof example in the drawings and will herein be described in detail. Theinvention should be understood to not be limited to the particular formsdisclosed, but on the contrary, the intention is to cover allmodifications, equivalents, and alternatives falling within the spiritand scope of the present disclosure.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

In the following description, numerous specific details are set forth inorder to provide a thorough understanding of the present disclosure. Itwill be apparent, however, to one of ordinary skill in the art that theinvention disclosed herein may be practiced without these specificdetails. In other instances, specific numeric references such as “firstprocess,” may be made. However, the specific numeric reference shouldnot be interpreted as a literal sequential order but rather interpretedthat the “first process” is different than a “second process.” Thus, thespecific details set forth are merely exemplary. The specific detailsmay be varied from and still be contemplated to be within the spirit andscope of the present disclosure. The term “coupled” is defined asmeaning connected either directly to the component or indirectly to thecomponent through another component. Further, as used herein, the terms“about,” “approximately,” or “substantially” for any numerical values orranges indicate a suitable dimensional tolerance that allows the part orcollection of components to function for its intended purpose asdescribed herein.

In general, the present disclosure provides a composition and method forgraphene reinforced polyethylene terephthalate (PET). Graphenenanoplatelets (GNPs) comprising multi-layer graphene are used toreinforce PET, thereby improving the properties of PET for various newapplications. Master-batches comprising polyethylene terephthalate withdispersed graphene nanoplatelets are obtained by way of compounding. Themaster-batches are used to form PET-GNP nanocomposites at weightfractions ranging between 0.5% and 15%. In some embodiments, PET andGNPs are melt compounded by way of twin-screw extrusion. In someembodiments, ultrasound is coupled with a twin-screw extruder so as toassist with melt compounding. In some embodiments, the PET-GNPnanocomposites are prepared by way of high-speed injection molding. ThePET-GNP nanocomposites are compared by way of their mechanical, thermal,and rheological properties so as to contrast different compoundingprocesses.

Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) is an aromatic semi-crystallinepolyester. PET is synthesized through condensation polymerization, usingTerephthalic acid (TPA) and Ethylene Glycol (EG), or DimethylTerephthalate (DMT) and Ethylene Glycol (EG) as raw materials. Amulti-step polymerization process is used in the manufacture of PET soas to achieve a desired molecular weight and to minimize a formation ofbyproducts (e.g., Acetaldehyde). A molecular structure of PET is shownin FIG. 1. As will be appreciated, a presence of a rigid aromatic ringin the molecular chain gives rise to high melting and glass transitiontemperatures, as well as stiffening the polymer. Further, the rigidaromatic ring also gives the molecule a nearly planar arrangement in thecrystal structure. A combination of physical properties and chemicalinertness makes PET suitable for applications such as fibers, packaging,and engineering molding.

Although PET is limited in tenors of crystallization rate and barrierperformance, PET's relatively low price drives an interest in improvingthe material properties of PET by way of adding fillers andreinforcements. Nanomaterials provide an advantage of reinforcing PETwhile minimizing a change in density of the obtained composite material.

Nanoreinforcements

Nanoreinforcements generally are categorized into three differentgroups, based on their geometry, namely: nanoparticles, nanotubes andnanoplatelets. Nanoreinforcements are advantageous over largerreinforcements. It will be recognized that the smaller the particles,the stronger and more effective the particles are in reinforcing thematrix as compared with larger counterparts. Another advantage is theavailable surface area for a unit volume. In the case of sphericalparticles, for example, a ratio of the surface area to volume isinversely proportional to the particle radius. FIG. 2 illustrates anincrease in interface for different types of reinforcements ranging insize from microscale to nanoscale. As indicated in FIG. 2, a surfaceenergy available per unit area will be high for nanoparticles, therebymaking them chemically active.

It will be appreciated that the selection of nanoreinforcements dependson many factors such as the polymer used, an intended application,target properties, a desired form of interaction with the polymer,material handling concerns, a processing method, as well as cost. Itwill be further appreciated that the shape of the nanoreinforcementinfluences the characteristics of the polymer nanocomposite.

Nanoparticles may be classified as organic or inorganic, based on theirchemistry. A number of nanoparticles have been used in polymernanocomposites, such as organoclays (MMT), metal nanoparticles (e.g. Aland Ag), metal oxides (e.g. Al2O3, ZnO, and silica), cellulosenanocrystals, and carbon derivatives (CNT's, Fullerenes, Graphite oxide,and Graphene).

Carbon Nanoreinforcement and Graphene

Carbon is an interesting element of the periodic table possessing uniquehybridization properties and an ability to manipulate its structure.Carbon finds applications in several industries and processes commonlyin the form of graphite, amorphous carbon, and diamond. At thenanoscale, carbon materials are also interesting, showing uniqueproperties and structures, as shown in FIG. 4, such as fullerene, carbonnanotubes (CNTs), and graphene.

Graphene is defined as a single layer of carbon atoms with atwo-dimensional structure (sp² hybridization, planar hexagonalarrangement with a C—C bond distance of 0.142 nm). A thickness of asingle graphene sheet is estimated to be substantially 0.335 nm. One ofthe first two-dimensional materials available, graphene has a potentialto replace many contemporary materials used for different applications.During the course of graphene research, researchers have developeddifferent graphene-based materials, such as single layer graphene sheets(SLGS), few-layer graphene (FLG), multi-layer graphene (MLG), andexfoliated graphene platelets.

Graphene is superior over other carbon-based nanoreinforcements, such asCNTs, CNFs, and expanded graphite (EG), in terms of its aspect ratio,flexibility, transparency, thermal conductivity and low coefficient ofthermal expansion (CTE). The density of single layer graphene wascalculated at 0.77 mg m⁻². Graphene is regarded as the strongestmaterial with appreciable size. A Young's modulus of 1.02±0.03 TPa (0.2TPa for 4130 steel) and a strength of 130±10 GPa (0.7 GPa for 4130steel) have been measured for a single layer graphene sheet suspendedover open holes, by means of an atomic force microscope (AFM)nanoindentation technique. Graphene is found to exhibit a negativecoefficient of thermal expansion, α=−4.8±1.0×10⁻⁶ K⁻¹ through the 0-300K temperature range and a very high thermal conductivity (K) of 3000 WmK⁻¹ comparable to that of CNTs. Further, graphene sheets have beenfound to be hydrophobic and have a surface energy at room temperature of46.7 m⁻².

The abovementioned properties are for a high quality single layergraphene sheet. Properties of multi-layer graphene are different thanthe properties of single layer graphene. Thus, the number of layers(“n”) comprising the graphene influences the properties of the graphene.A single layer graphene sheet exhibits up to 97.7% transparency (2.3%absorption) and decreases linearly as the number of layers increases. Itis been shown that the thermal conductivity of graphene drops by morethan 50% as the number of layers increases from 2 to 4 and is comparableto that of bulk graphite when the number of layer is greater than 8.Further, it has been found that the modulus of graphene sheets decreaseswith an increase in temperature and with an increase in 13C isotopedensity, but increased with an increase in the number of layers. It willbe appreciated, however, that structural mechanics based atomisticmodeling of multi-layer graphene structures, molecular simulation ofcovalent and van der Waals interactions between layers, and experimentalmeasurements indicate a decrease in the modulus with an increasingnumber of layers. Mechanical properties of graphene nanoplatelets suchas stiffness and Poisson's ratio have been shown to decrease with anincrease in the number of layers, based on molecular dynamicssimulations. The stiffness of the nanoplatelets comprising five layershas been estimated to decrease by 15% as compared to single layergraphene, and the properties of the graphene differ based onorientation. It has been shown that an effective Young's modulus ofmulti-layer graphene comprising 10 layers is substantially 380 GPa,which is less than that of a graphite crystal. The effective Young'smodulus is determined based on the stress transfer efficiency betweenlayers for a multi-layer graphene. The effective Young's modulusdeviates from the modulus of a single layer graphene when themulti-layer graphene is of more than 3 layers, at which point the corelayer(s) will not be in contact with the polymer.

Single layer graphene may be obtained by way of “top down” or “bottomup” approaches. Separation of graphene sheets from graphite throughmechanical cleavage is a “top down” approach. Although graphene obtainedfrom this method is pristine and useful for testing purposes, it is notpractical for acquiring significant quantities of graphene.Alternatively, graphene may be prepared by way of “bottom up” approacheswherein chemical methods are used, such as chemical vapor deposition(CVD), epitaxial growth, as well as synthesis through colloidalsuspension. Further, graphene may also be made from CNTs by way ofchemical etching and from flash reduction of graphite oxide. Theapproach used to obtain graphene influences the physical properties ofthe graphene, thereby enabling graphene to be targeted for differentapplications, as shown in FIG. 3.

Processing of Nanocomposites

Composite manufacturing is an extensively studied field with a number ofprocesses available based on the size and application of the finalproduct. Nanocomposite processing involves a process for dispersion ofthe nanoreinforcement and forming processes for the intended finalapplication. A feasibility of nanocomposites largely depends upon cost,an availability of nanoparticles, and suitable manufacturing processes.Manufacturing techniques such as: injection and compression molding,layer-by-layer (LBL) manufacturing, in-situ micro-emulsionpolymerization, and spinning have been used for polymer nanocomposites.As will be appreciated, selection of the manufacturing process dependson the matrix resin and type of the nanoparticles to be used. It will befurther appreciated that injection molding is the most important of allplastic processing techniques because of its, speed, scalability, andtolerance to a wide range of materials. Methods attempted for achievinguniform dispersion of nanoreinforcements in a polymer are discussed inthe following section.

Dispersion of Nanoreinforcements

Achieving uniform and homogenous dispersion, or an “exfoliated” state,of nanoreinforcements is vital for the success of polymernanocomposites. Nanomaterials possess a high surface energy per unitarea, and thus they tend to form agglomerates so as to minimize thisenergy. The tendency to agglomerate makes it difficult to maintain thenanomaterials' nanoscale effective dimensions and disperse thenanomaterials into a polymer matrix. Dispersion of nanoreinforcementsinto the molten polymer depends on factors, such as viscosity of themelt, wetability of the reinforcement, energy imparted through themixing process, including breaking agglomerates, and efficiency of themixing process. Dispersion methods can be broadly categorized asmechanical-based and chemical-based. Several dispersion methods havebeen investigated under the mechanical-based category, such as meltcompounding, master-batch processing, ultrasound-assisted compounding,chaotic advection blending, solid-state shear pulverization (SSSP),solid state ball milling (SSBM), and acoustic mixing. These dispersionmethods may be further categorized as “melt mixing” or “solid statemixing.”

Melt compounding is the most commonly employed technique for dispersingnanoreinforcements in thermoplastic polymers. As described herein,nanoreinforcements were dispersed into a molten polymer by way of amixing action of a single or twin-screw extruder. Solid state shearpulverization (SSSP) is another mechanical mixing technique, developedfor blending immiscible polymers. However, distortion of thenanoplatelets during the screw mixing processes is of concern as thatcan reduce their effectiveness. Some other techniques mentioned aboveinvolving solid state mixing are SSBM and acoustic mixing. In SSBM thenanoparticles and the polymer mixture are milled to fine powders andthen used as an input for a secondary process. Acoustic mixing is basedon a generation of a uniform shear field throughout the mixing chamberfor high efficiency mixing.

A chemical approach to prevent agglomeration is to modify the surface,or functionalize the surface, of the nanoparticle, which reduces thesurface energy, changes their polarity, and thereby preventsagglomeration. Through functionalization, the surface of thenanoparticle is covered with ions or molecules (i.e., surfactants) thatare compatible with a specific polymer. As every polymer has a differentchemistry and structure, choosing a correct functionalization isimportant.

Moreover, there are solvent mixing techniques such as sol-gelprocessing, solution mixing, sonication, shear mixing, and high speedmixing. These techniques are mainly useful for working withthermosetting resins and low temperature thermoplastics. They are mainlyreserved for batch wise processing and pose handling and consistencyissues for large scale processing.

In a twin-screw extruder, the polymer melts between two rotating screwsand the housing by undergoing shear deformation. As the nanoplateletsare bound with Van der Waals forces, they can be separated by anapplication of shear forces during mixing. Shearing and mixing of thereinforcements and the polymer melt can be achieved through mixingscrew's possessing a large length-to-diameter ratio (L/D) and by anapplication of different screw elements. Taking advantage of this,twin-screws have been used for decades in compounding. Since theirinception into polymer processing, different types of twin-screwextruders have been developed. Basic differences are based on the shapeand direction of screw rotation. There are co-rotating,counter-rotating, and intermeshing screws. In order to increase theefficiency of mixing, segmented screws with different replaceableelements (e.g. kneading elements) have also been developed. It has beenfound that nanocomposites show similar performance irrespective of thetype of screw rotation, but using counter-rotating screws gives rise tobetter dispersion. Further, it has been found that the flow velocity ina co-rotating screw is higher at the screw tip. This corresponds to ahigher shearing rate and is considered good for mixing.

As will be appreciated, the melt compounding method is the mostconvenient and industrially promising process to produce polymernanocomposites. Master-batch mixing is a multi-stage approach wherebyalready mixed polymer-nanoreinforcement pellets are melted again andmixed at the same or reduced loading rate. Those skilled in the art willrecognize that master-batch mixing is commonly used during polymerprocessing for adding specialized additives or dyes during primaryprocesses such as injection molding and extrusion. Master-batch pelletsare prepared using the same or a compatible base resin and the additiveat high loading rates. Further, it has been found that nanocompositesfrom the master-batch process are superior to those obtained by way ofmelt processing. Having the secondary mixing helped in improving theperformance of the nanocomposites through increased dispersion.

In case of the ultrasound-assisted extrusion, along with twin-screwmixing, additional energy is applied in the form of ultrasound waves.Ultrasound energy is used for making thermodynamically unstableemulsions and as an initiator for polymerization reactions. As will beappreciated, nanoparticle dispersion may be improved by way of combiningultrasound with twin-screw extrusion. Ultrasound energy applied to thepolymer-nanoparticle mixture will lead to cavitation, due to adevelopment of a high temperature zone locally. As the bubbles grow,they help in breaking and separating the nanoparticles into the polymermatrix.

Dispersing single layer graphene into a polymer has intriguedresearchers for quite some time. Graphene generally is difficult to wetand exhibits a lower adhesion energy compared to graphite and grapheneoxide. In order to improve the adhesion and reactivity of graphene forcertain applications, graphene sheets may be functionalized on bothsurfaces. Functionalized graphene is especially useful for bio-sensingapplications. In some studies, an effect of fluorination on graphenesheets has been researched. The resulting fluorographene was found to bean insulator, with similar thermal and mechanical behavior as that ofgraphene.

Solvent dispersion of graphene gained much attention through successfuldispersion of graphene in organic solvent N-Methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP).In some studies, an effectiveness of different solvents in exfoliationof graphene through sonication has been researched. It has been shownthat graphene can be dispersed in water at high concentrations (0.7mg/ml) by using surfactants (Triton X-100) and a combination of lowpower and high power sonication. As graphene is hydrophobic, applicationof a dispersant with hydrophobic and hydrophilic ends will help instabilizing the dispersion in an aqueous solvent. Strong π-π interactionbetween the benzene ring in the surfactant (Triton X-100) and thearomatic structure of graphene sheets aid in the dispersion. Aqueousdispersed graphene obtained through a size selective approach (i.e.,selecting uniform diameter graphene through centrifuge) appears to be apromising direction for the preparation of polymer nanocomposites.Nevertheless, the cost and complexity of the approach may limit thisroute for commercial applications.

It has been found that the wetability and work of adhesion of grapheneis higher with ethylene glycol (EG) as compared with water. Furthermore,reduced graphene oxide can be well dispersed in ethylene glycol due to apresence of oxygen-containing functional groups. Ethylene glycol beingone of the raw materials for the polymerization of PET makes solutiondispersion a reasonable route for the development of nanocomposites.

PET Nanocomposites

As stated earlier, PET nanocomposites are being pursued with anintention of improving their properties and expanding to newapplications. Currently, other nanomaterials are already being used anddispersed in the polymerization of PET. For example, as shown in FIG. 5,carbon black nanoparticles, having an average diameter 400 nm, are usedat 6 ppm, or 0.0006%, for improving the heat absorption capacity of PET.Carbon black dispersion achieved through in-situ polymerization, offersan energy savings even at this low 6 ppm loading. Investigatingnanocomposite preparation through the in-situ approach, at a moresignificant weight fraction may help in understanding the effectivenessof this approach.

High melting temperature and melt viscosity of PET make melt-compoundinga relevant technique for the preparation of nanocomposites. As describedherein, the addition of graphene to PET has been found to improve themechanical, barrier, thermal, and conductive properties of PET. It isenvisioned, however, that improving the dispersion of graphene andunderstanding the strengthening mechanisms at high loadings will lead tonew applications, such as by way of non-limiting example, strainmonitoring, electromagnetic shielding, lightning strike protection,reduced moisture absorption, and the like.

Experimental Details

In some embodiments, commercially available PET of molecular weightM_(w)—84,100 g/mol (0.81 dl/g intrinsic viscosity (I.V.)) may beobtained in the form of pellets. As received, the PET pellets aresemi-crystalline, which may be verified by way of differential scanningcalorimetry (DSC). As will be appreciated, PET is hygroscopic, and apresence of moisture in the polymer melt will lead to a loss ofmolecular weight through chain scission (hydrolysis of ester bonds).Therefore, the PET may be advantageously dried for 4-6 hours at 170° C.before each process so as to minimize polymer degradation.

In some embodiments, commercially available graphene may be obtained inthe form of graphene nanoplatelets (GNPs), having two different averagesurface areas. In some embodiments, graphene nanoplatelets (GNPs) withan average diameter of 5 μm, thickness around 6 to 8 nm and an averagesurface area of 120-150 m²/g, (xGnP®-M-5 grade) may be used in thepreparation of nanocomposites. In some embodiments, nanoplatelets withan average diameter of 2 μm, average surface area of 750 m²/g(xGnP®-C-750 grade) may be used for in-situ polymerization. In someembodiments, the nanoplatelets are initially in a dry agglomeratedpowder form, wherein each agglomerated platelet comprises severalnanoplatelets, as shown in FIG. 6(a)-(b). As will be appreciated, thenanoplatelets generally are not uniform across their lengths andcomprise zig-zag edges. FIG. 7 illustrates a chemical structure of thenanoplatelets. The nanoplatelets are comprised of 99.5% carbon with verylow oxygen and hydrogen present in the form of carboxyl and hydroxylgroups on the edges. It will be recognized that the carboxyl andhydroxyl groups are formed due to the exposure of raw carbon during thefracture of the platelets. In some embodiments, the nanoplatelets may beprepared by way of a procedure wherein acid intercalated graphite flakeswere expanded by way of microwave processing, as described in a Doctorof Philosophy Dissertation, entitled “Graphite Nanoreinforcements inPolymer Nanocomposites,” Chemical Engineering and Materials Science,2003, by H. Fukushima, the entirety of which is hereby incorporated byreference herein.

Preparation of PET-GNP Nanocomposites

In some embodiments, graphene nanoplatelets may be dispersed into thePET matric without forming agglomerates by compounding PET-Graphenemaster-batches through twin-screw and ultrasound-assisted twin-screwprocesses. In one embodiment, graphene nanoplatelets (GNPs) and PETresin were compounded into PET-xGnP master-batch pellets using a KraussMaffei ZE-25 UTX laboratory extruder having co-rotating screws. Twodifferent sets of master-batch pellets at 2%, 5%, 10% and 15% weightfraction were compounded using this process. In each set, 5.4 kgs (12lbs) of master-batch was prepared for each of the weight fractions.

In some embodiments, ultrasound may be used to assist twin-screwcompounding. In one embodiment, PET-graphene nanoplatelets wereprocessed using an ultrasound-assisted twin-screw extrusion system. ThePET pellets were dried overnight in oven at 80° C. to remove moistureand then compounded with graphene nanoplatelets at 5% weight fraction.The PET and graphene nanoplatelets were compounded using a co-rotatingtwin-screw micro-compounder equipped with an ultrasound horn operatingat 40 kHz, as shown in FIG. 9. The ultrasound horn was positioned in thebarrel region at a distance of 14.5 cm from the die entrance. Thevertical position of the horn tip was adjusted such that it is incontact with the polymer melt. A flow rate of 0.9 kg/hr (2 lbs/hr) wasmaintained throughout the process, with a set screw speed of 200 RPM,resulting in a residence time of 9.2 seconds in the ultrasound treatmentzone.

Combined with the baseline composite master-batch, a total of four setsof master-batches were prepared including different ultrasoundamplitudes: no ultrasound (0 USM), 3.5 μm (3.5 USM), 5 μm (5 USM), and7.5 μM (7.5 USM). Further, to understand the effect of ultrasoundtreatment on PET alone, pure PET (no reinforcement) was also processedunder the same conditions. FIG. 8 illustrates sizes and dimensions ofseveral exemplary embodiments of compounded PET-Graphene in pelletizedform.

In-Situ Polymerization

In some embodiments, in-situ polymerization may be employed in thepreparation of polymer nanocomposites. As will be appreciated, in-situpolymerization generally comprises two steps. The first step comprisesintercalating nanoscale reinforcements in the solution phase usingcompatible polymer precursors or solvents. In the second step,polymerization is undertaken using the nanoplatelet intercalatedsolution. Dispersing the nanoplatelets into a chemically compatible andlow viscosity material is considered to be more efficient compared todirect mixing with highly viscous polymer melt.

As will be appreciated, since ethylene glycol (EG) is one of the rawmaterials for the polymerization of PET, EG may be advantageously usedas a solvent for dispersing graphene nanoplatelets. In one embodiment,EG of reagent grade, having a 99% purity, was used as a solvent fordispersing graphene nanoplatelets. Graphene nanoplatelets were added tothe EG at a concentration of 1 mg/ml (i.e., 0.1% weight fraction) andsonicated using a 40 kHz bath sonicator. EG-GNP solutions were sonicatedfor 106 hours so as to ensure a homogenous dispersion, as depicted inFIG. 10. During the sonication process, solution beakers were coveredwith aluminum foil to prevent exposure to atmospheric oxygen.Dispersions were prepared using both low (120 m2/g) and high (750 m2/g)surface area graphene nanoplatelets.

In one embodiment, in-situ polymerization of graphene nanoplateletsdispersed in ethylene glycol and dimethyl terephthalate was attemptedusing a 1 kg polymerization reactor. PET polymerization was performedthrough a two-step reaction. The first step is an ester interchangereaction (EI), wherein the monomer is formed. In the second step, thepolymer is formed through a polycondensation reaction (PC). Experimentalsetups used along with the undergoing reaction at each step aredescribed below.

FIG. 11 is a schematic illustrating an exemplary embodiment of a reactorand methanol collection setup for performing the ester interchangereaction. In the embodiment illustrated in FIG. 11, powdered dimethylterephthalate (DMT) was used for the polymerization. EG with dispersedGNPs and the powdered DMT were charged into the reactor under nitrogenpurge at a 2.3:1 moles ratio, with an excess of EG. The catalysts forthe ester interchange reaction, manganese acetate (Mn(CH3COO)2), and forthe polycondensation reaction, antimony trioxide (Sb2O3), were added tothe batch at 82 ppm and 300 ppm respectively, and heated to 175° C.under constant stirring. As the batch temperature approached about 170°C., methanol collection began indicating that the ester interchangereaction had started and then the nitrogen purge was closed. Thereonwards the batch temperature was increased in steps of 15° C. until thetemperature reached 235° C. As the reaction progressed, the temperaturewithin the gooseneck condenser increased from room temperature to above60° C. Once the methanol collection reached the theoretical yield, 300ml in this case, and the gooseneck condenser temperature dropped tobelow 60° C., the ester interchange was considered finished. Thegooseneck condenser was removed and polyphosphoric acid (H3PO4) wasadded at 38 ppm to the batch so as to terminate the ester interchangereaction. FIG. 12 illustrates a formation of ester interchange throughthe ester interchange between DMT and EG. The entire ester interchangereaction took around 3 hours to finish.

FIG. 13 is a schematic illustrating an exemplary embodiment of a reactorand an excess EG collection condenser setup for performing thepolycondensation reaction. During the polycondensation reaction, thereactor temperature was increased to 285° C. and maintained under vacuum(30 in Hg) until PET of a desired viscosity was obtained. Isophthalicacid (C6H4(COH)2) and stabilized cobalt were added at 20 grams and 65ppm, respectively, to the batch at a beginning of the polycondensationreaction. It will be appreciated that isophthalic acid limits thecrystallinity of PET, thus making the PET easier to process. Thestabilized cobalt was added so as to control a final color of the PET.As illustrated in FIG. 14, during the polycondensation reaction, themolecular weight of PET increases and EG is released. During thepolycondensation reaction, released EG was collected in a round flaskand solidified using dry ice so as to prevent the EG from flowing into avacuum pump. As will be appreciated, a change in the viscosity of thebatch with increasing PET chain length will affect the stirring current.Thus, as the reaction progressed, an electric current passed to thestirrer was monitored for change at 15-minute intervals. Once no changein the electric current passed to the stirrer was detected at twoconsecutive readings, the reaction was stopped by cutting the vacuum.The resultant polymer melt was then extruded from an opening at thebottom of the reactor into an ice water bath and pelletized using astrand chopper. FIG. 14(a) illustrates reaction times and yields forthree batch polymerizations, including one control batch withoutgraphene nanoplatelets that were performed by way of the setupsillustrated in FIGS. 11 and 13.

Injection Molding of Nanocomposites

In some embodiments, nanocomposite master-batches may beinjection-molded to different final nanoplatelet loading fractions so asto facilitate investigating their microstructural, mechanical andthermal characteristics. In one embodiment, three different injectionmolding presses were used, comprising an oil cooled molder, a watercooled molder, and a micro injection molder. PET-graphene nanoplateletmaster-batches obtained from the compounding processes, described above,were used for molding nanocomposites at different loading fractions. Theoil cooled injection molding unit was used for molding nanocomposites at2%, 5%, 10% and 15% GNP weight fractions from master-batches (compoundedpellets were injection molded with no dilution of graphene concentrationusing pure PET). Tensile bars were molded with barrel temperatures inthe range of 260° C. to 280° C. A standard tensile bar mold, followingASTM D 638 type I specifications, was used.

Signs of crystallization, indicated by an opaque core, were observed inthe injection molded PET, due to a slow rate of cooling. In anotherembodiment, a HyPET 90 RS45/38 injection molding system which isdesigned for PET was utilized. Injection molding was performed offsiteat a Niagara Bottling LLC, facility in Ontario, Calif. The HyPET 90RS45/38 injection molding system has a 90 ton clamping force andcomprises a 38 mm screw diameter and a chilled water cooled mold. Thisenables processing of PET at higher cooling rates so as to retain theamorphous microstructure.

Moreover, a custom mold was developed so as to keep the injectionmolding of the nanocomposite similar to industry standard for processingPET. A tube specimen prepared using the custom mold, shown in FIG. 15,is designed for ease of mechanical testing. As shown in FIG. 15, thetube specimen comprises a large gauge length with a uniformcross-section. Thus, the custom mold makes parts comprising a relevantsize and processing window (i.e., injection pressures and cycle times)that are typical of industrial scale parts.

Using the nanocomposite pellets obtained from the aforementionedmethods, samples for mechanical testing were injection molded atdifferent GNP concentrations. For the purpose of testing nanocompositeswith low GNP weight fractions, the master-batch was diluted by mixingwith PET and injection molded into nanocomposites with as low as 0.5%weight fraction. Final weight fractions of the nanocomposites wereverified by measuring the percentage of pellets in the images collectedfrom feed throat, as shown in FIGS. 16(a)-(b). Upon using the dimensionsof the pellets, as listed in FIG. 8, the actual weight fractions werecalculated. Nanocomposites from each process run were collected forcharacterization studies, after the process was stabilized.Stabilization occurs when injection pressures and cycle time are steadyfor more than 10 min. FIG. 16(c) presents the injection moldednanocomposite weight fractions associated with each master-batch.

Process Optimization

Polymer processing through injection molding is dependent on severalvariables, including barrel temperatures, injection pressure, hold andback pressures, fill time, cooling time, and the like. As will beappreciated, balancing all of these variables is necessary to have apart free of crystallinity and defects, such as voids. At the start ofeach process run, the barrel was flushed with baseline material toremove any residual material from previous tests. It will be recognizedthat flushing within baseline material enables starting the processingwith known conditions and optimizing them as the PET-master-batchmixture occupies the barrel.

The addition of graphene nanoplatelets affects the melt viscosity ofPET, and this will reflect on fill pressures. It was observed that amaximum fill pressure decreased when processing the ultrasoundmaster-batch, as shown in FIG. 16(d), while a hold pressure was thesame. As will be appreciated, the hold pressure is important for keepingthe mold closed while the material solidifies. Another important processvariable is back pressure, which helps homogenize the material andremove voids from the melt. Effectiveness of the process, mixing of PET,and the master-batch inside the barrel can be checked through visualinspection. For samples with lower GNP weight fraction, visual signs ofpoor mixing include dark spots, marks, and flow streaks, as shown inFIG. 17(a)-(b).

Micro-Injection Molding

In some embodiments, tensile samples may be prepare using amicro-injection system for the purpose of inspecting the effect ofultrasound treatment on PET mechanical properties and evaluating theimprovement from graphene dispersion through ultrasound withoutdilution. In one embodiment, the tensile samples were prepared using a5.5 cc capacity micro-injection molding unit in combination with a 5 ccmicro compounding unit, as shown in FIGS. 18(a)-(b). The micro-injectionmolding unit of FIGS. 18(a)-(b), comprising a mold shown in FIG. 19(a),was used for the preparation of tensile bars shown in FIG. 19(b). Themicro-compounder unit equipped with a co-rotating twin screw was used tomelt the pellets and provide a homogenous melt mixture, as describedherein. A transfer device shown in FIG. 18(b), was used to transfer thepolymer or the nanocomposite melt from the compounder to the injectionmolder. The injection molder injected the polymer material into aconical mold by way of a plunger connected to high pressure air (13.8bar). As will be recognized, the micro-injection system provides controlof the mold temperature, injection pressure, hold pressure, injectiontime, and hold time.

In one embodiment, a dual dog bone mold, shown in FIG. 19(a), wasdesigned according to the ASTM D 638 Type V specimen L/D ratio for thegauge section, with a fill volume of 2.1 cc. During the compoundingprocess, the material was heated to 270° C. and homogenized by opening arecirculation valve for 1 min, after which the melt was collected intothe transfer device. The tensile bars were made using an aluminum moldat room temperature. The relatively large volume of the aluminum moldacts as a heat sink and allowed for cooling of the polymer melt duringinjection. FIG. 19(c) lists the injection process parameters used formaking the PET nanocomposite tensile bars.

In total, five different material sets, comprising PET control,ultrasound treated PET, nanocomposites pellets with 5% GNP weightfraction from twin-screw mixing, ultrasound assisted twin-screw mixing,and materials from in-situ polymerization, were processed using themicro-compounding system, and tensile bars were obtained for mechanicaltesting. In the case of nanocomposites, different mixing time periodswere also investigated to understand the effect of mixing time on thenanocomposite properties. All the materials were dried in smallquantities (30 grams) at 170° C. for 2 hours in an oven beforeprocessing so as to avoid degradation due to the presence of moisture,or a drop in viscosity due to over-drying.

Characterization of Nanocomposites

Comparison of the densities between the injection molded nanocompositeswill help in identifying the difference in the samples due to processdefects (e.g., voids). Relative densities can be determined based onArchimedes' principle, using the following equation:

$\begin{matrix}{\rho = {\frac{m}{m - \overset{\_}{m}}\rho_{0}}} & (1)\end{matrix}$

Where, m is the mass of the sample in air, m is the mass of the samplein liquid medium, and ρ₀ is the density of the medium used (i.e.,water).

Amorphous PET has a density of 1335 kg/m³. PET a semi-crystallinepolymer, exhibits a range of densities based on crystallinity. Thetheoretical density of the amorphous nanocomposite can be calculatedusing the relative density of PET (1335 kg/m³) and GNPs (2200 kg/m³).Crystallinity of the control (PET) and nanocomposite samples can beevaluated using the equation given below.

$\begin{matrix}{X_{c} = {\left( \frac{\rho_{c}}{\rho_{sample}} \right)\left( \frac{\rho_{sample} - \rho_{a}}{\rho_{c} - \rho_{a}} \right)}} & (2)\end{matrix}$

Where, X_(c) is the crystallinity of the sample, ρ_(a) is the densityfor amorphous PET, ρ_(c) is the density for crystalline PET (1455kg/m³), and ρ_(sample) is the density of the composite.

PET is known to undergo chain scission under high shear at melttemperatures. Further, the effects of ultrasound treatment on PET havenot been previously investigated. Therefore, to evaluate the change inmolecular weight of the ultrasound treated PET and PET nanocomposite,Gel Permeation Chromatography (GPC) was performed. Hexafluoroisopropanol(HFIP) was used as a solvent for dissolving PET at room temperature. Forthe composite pellets, the nanoplatelets were filtered out after thepolymer was dissolved. GPC measurements were performed at AurigaPolymers. Polymer dissolved in the solvent (5 mg/ml) was pumped at aconstant flow rate through a GPC column with specific pore sizes. Thetime taken by the polymer molecules in a swollen state to pass throughthe column (retention time) is based on the size of the molecules. Whilethe polymer solution passes through the column, the elution volume forthe different fractions (same molecular weight), identified using arefractive index detector, was recorded. Comparing this elution volumeagainst Polystyrene standards of known molecular weight, the averagemolecular weight for PET samples was obtained.

Intrinsic viscosity (I.V.) of PET and ultrasound treated PET pellets wasmeasured at the Auriga Polymer facility, using their proprietarysolvents that were calibrated with respect to the solvents recommendedin ASTM D4603 standard. After dissolving the polymer pellets in solvent,that solution was passed through a glass capillary viscometer and theflow time for the solution as it drops from the higher to lowercalibration mark (as shown in FIG. 20) was recorded. The ratio of theaverage flow times for solution to the solvent gave the relativeviscosity (η_(r)) of the polymer. Intrinsic viscosity of the polymer wascalculated using the following equations:η_(r) =t/t ₀  (3)η=0.25(η_(r)−1+3 ln η_(r))/C  (4)

Where, η_(r) is the relative viscosity, t is the average solution flowtime (s), t₀ is the average solvent flow time (s), n is the intrinsicviscosity (dL/g), and C is the polymer solution concentration (g/dL).

Using the intrinsic viscosity (I.V.) data obtained by the abovementionedprocedure and weight average molecular weight data from the GPCtechnique, Mark-Houwink parameters for relating PET I.V. to M_(w) wererefined and used to calculate the viscosities for ultrasound treatednanocomposites:[η]=KM ^(a)  (5)

Where, η is polymer intrinsic viscosity (dL/g), M is the averagemolecular weight (g/mol), ‘K’ and ‘a’ are Mark-Houwink constants. Whileusing weight average molecular weight, ‘K’ and ‘a’ are respectivelytaken as 0.00047 and 0.68.

Nanocomposite samples with two different geometries were obtained fromthe injection molding process: tensile bars and tensile tubes. Both thegeometries, tensile bars and tubes were tested using a universalmaterials tester at a cross-head speed of 5 mm/min, following the ASTM D638 standard. A non-contact laser extensometer was used for recordingstrain. The laser extensometer records the displacement based on thereflections from self-reflective tape, used to mark the gauge length onthe test samples, as shown in FIG. 21(a). Strain values from the laserextensometer and load from the load cell were simultaneously recorded atan interval of 100 ms. For the purpose of testing the nanocompositetubes, a custom fixture shown in FIGS. 21(b)-21(d), was used. A minimumof 5 samples were tested for each process condition.

Differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) of the PET and nanocompositesamples was performed to understand the effect of graphene on thermalproperties (glass transition, crystallization and melt temperatures) ofPET. Thermographs of nanocomposites were acquired using a differentialscanning calorimeter. Nanocomposite samples were heated from ambienttemperature to 300° C. at 10° C./min and held at 300° C. for 1 min(first heating cycle), then cooled to 25° C. at 10° C./min and held at25° C. for 1 min (first cooling cycle), and then finally reheated to300° C. at 10° C./min (second heating cycle) under a nitrogenatmosphere. Ultrasound treated PET pellets were also analyzed for achange in thermal properties.

From the first heating cycle, melting parameters (temperature, heat offusion) and heat of crystallization were obtained for determining thecrystallinity (X_(c)). Melt crystallization temperature (T_(a)) andon-set temperature (T_(on)) were obtained from the first cooling cycle,to determine the crystallization half-time (t_(1/2)). Crystallinity canbe calculated using the below equation:

$\begin{matrix}{X_{c} = {\left\lbrack \frac{{\Delta\; H_{f}} - {\Delta\; H_{cc}}}{\Delta\; H_{c}^{0}} \right\rbrack\left( \frac{1}{1 - w_{f}} \right) \times 100}} & (6)\end{matrix}$

Where, ΔH_(f) is the heat of fusion, ΔH_(cc) is the heat ofcrystallization (cold crystallization), ΔH_(c) ⁰ is the heat of fusionfor 100% crystalline polymer, for PET-140.1 J/g, and w_(f) is the weightfraction of the reinforcement phase in the nanocomposites.

Crystallization half-time was determined using the following equation:

$\begin{matrix}{t_{1/2} = \frac{\left( {T_{on} - T_{c}} \right)}{X}} & (7)\end{matrix}$

Where, T_(on) is the crystallization on-set temperature, T_(c) is thecrystallization temperature, and X is the rate of cooling (here, 10°C./min).

Polymer flow behavior is known to be affected by the addition ofreinforcements (micro or nano). Studying the flow properties of thenanocomposites is useful for their processing. Melt rheology was studiedto understand the effect of graphene on the flow properties of PET.Rheographs for nanocomposite pellets were acquired using a rotationalRheometer, equipped with a 25 mm diameter parallel plate geometry andelectronically controlled heating. Samples were dried in an oven at 170°C. for 12 hours to eliminate moisture. PET and nanocomposite pelletsplaced between parallel plates were melt-pressed to 1 mm thickness (asshown in FIG. 22) at 260° C., under N₂ atmosphere. The linearviscoelastic region (region where material response is independent ofthe deformation amplitude) of the samples was determined by running astrain sweep at a 1 Hz frequency. Dynamic frequency sweeps from 100rad/s to 0.1 rad/s were acquired for all the samples at 1% strain rate,within the linear viscoelastic region for PET.

Dispersion of nanoparticles into the polymer matrix increases polymerchain entanglements through polymer-polymer and polymer-reinforcementinteractions. An increase in entanglements stiffens the polymer andexhibits a solid like (rigid) deformation behavior, which is independentof the test frequency. Transition of the nanocomposite to a rigidbehavior occurs at a critical weight fraction (percolation threshold),when a connecting network of the reinforcement is formed. Dynamicfrequency sweeps of moduli provides information from both the polymerand reinforcement phase. Where the high frequency moduli are dominatedby the polymer matrix and the low frequency response of the material isdominated by the reinforcement. Therefore, the percolation volumefraction can be obtained based on the low frequency moduli of thenanocomposite. The average aspect ratio of the reinforcement at thepercolation volume fraction can be determined using the followingequation.

$\begin{matrix}{A_{f} = \frac{3\;\phi_{sphere}}{2\phi_{per}}} & (8)\end{matrix}$

Where, ϕ_(sphere) is the percolation volume fraction for randomly packedoverlapping spheres (here, taken to be 0.30) and ϕ_(per) is thepercolation volume fraction for the nanocomposite.

Raman spectroscopy is the most widely used technique for characterizingthe quality of graphene. For nanocomposites, several studies havereported the application of Raman spectroscopy for characterizing theinteraction between a polymer-graphene system and the quality ofgraphene. A characteristic Raman spectrum of single layer graphene willhave peaks near 1580 cm⁻¹ (G-band) corresponding to the C—C stretchingof sp² carbon materials and near 2680 cm⁻¹ (G′-band), is thecorresponding higher order mode. The presence of defects in graphene cangive rise to a different Raman peak near 1350 cm¹ (D-band), which isuseful in analyzing the quality of graphene. In the case of multi-layergraphene, number of layers up to n=7 for multi-layer graphene can beestimated based on the intensity of G-band (˜1580 cm¹) and the shape of2D-band or G′-band (˜2680 cm¹) can be used to identify up to n=4 layers.In the current work, Raman spectroscopy was used to evaluate thedispersion of graphene nanoplatelets and also to ascertain the π-πinteractions between graphene layers and the phenyl ring in the PETmolecular chain. Interaction of PET phenyl ring with graphene is foundto show a shift in the Raman band related to C—C stretching (1617 cm⁻¹)of the phenyl ring.

Raman spectrum for PET and PET-GNP nanocomposites were collected using a532 nm (green light) laser excitation, at 2 mW laser power, with a 20 μmspot size. Change in the C—C (1617 cm¹) band position was evaluated bydoing an individual peak fit (Gaussian fit) on the spectra collected foreach GNP weight fraction.

Microstructure Analysis

As will be appreciated, imaging nanocomposites is imperative tounderstand the role of nanoparticles in improving polymer properties.Nanoreinforcements are considered advantageous because of the largeextent of interactions possible with the polymer matrix. Thus, it isnecessary to visualize the extent of interactions, which depend on thelevel of dispersion. In addition, the actual microstructural informationis beneficial to model the behavior of nanocomposites and help inengineering materials. Electron microscopy and X-Ray diffraction are themost common techniques used for studying dispersion. Both of thesetechniques are often used in support of each other.

Graphene nanoplatelets inside the PET matrix were imaged by scanningelectron microscopy (SEM). SEM micrographs of the fracture surfaces ofthe PET, and PET-GNP nanocomposites were obtained. PET control and thenanocomposites with lower graphene content (up to 2%) were Au/Pt coatedusing a Balzers Union MED 010 coater.

Nanocomposite tensile bars were imaged with ultrasound to evaluate thepresence of process defects (e.g. voids). Ultrasound ‘Bulk Scans’ forthe nanocomposites were acquired using an acoustic microscope. Scanningwas done at an ultrasound frequency of 30 MHz, with 0.5″ focal lengthand a spot size of 122 μm. During the scanning process a liquid medium,such as water, was used between the probe and sample, to maximize theultrasound transmission. Ultrasound micrographs were recorded at a pixelpitch of 84 μm.

To analyze the exfoliation of graphene nanoplatelets, transmissionelectron microscopy (TEM) was performed. Nanocomposite thin sections(thickness of 70 nm) for 5% and 15% GNP weight fraction tensile barswere microtomed and imaged under a transmission electron microscope atan operating voltage of 200 kV. The difference in electron densitiesbetween PET and GNP provided a contrast in transmission electronmicrographs. Due to the higher density of graphene nanoplateletscompared to PET, they can be recognized as the darker regions in themicrographs. Nanoplatelet parameters, thickness and length (diameter)were obtained, by measuring the number of pixels after calibrating thetransmission electron micrographs.

Transmission electron micrographs provide 2D dimensions of thenanoplatelets. However, this information alone is not sufficient toquantify their distribution in the polymer matrix. An ‘interparticledistance (λ_(d))’ parameter may be used to quantify the exfoliation ofplatelets, based on the information from TEM micrographs. Developedbased on the stereological relations for relating the information from a2D slice to 3D, interparticle distance is the average distance measuredbetween particles in a straight line. Using the binarized TEMmicrographs, the interparticle distance (λ_(d)) was determined based onEq. (9), given below. Interfacial area per unit volume (S_(V))_(P-G) canbe obtained by measuring the combined perimeter of the nanoplateletspresent per unit area of the micrograph.

$\begin{matrix}{\lambda_{d} = \frac{4\left( {1 - V_{V}} \right)}{\left( S_{V} \right)_{P - G}}} & (9) \\{S_{V} = {4\;{L_{A}/\pi}}} & (10)\end{matrix}$

Where, V_(V) is the volume fraction of the nanoplatelets, (S_(V))_(P-G)is the polymer-nanoplatelet interfacial area per unit volume ofspecimen, and L_(A) is the total perimeter of the platelets per unitarea of the 2D micrograph.

Considering the nanoplatelets are disk shaped, with known thickness (t)and aspect ratio (A_(f)) dispersed in the polymer, theoreticalinterparticle distance can be estimated using the following equation,which may be obtained way of Eqs. (9) and (10):t=λ _(d) V _(V)(A _(f)+2)/[2(1−V _(V))A _(f)]  (11)

Where, V_(V) is the volume fraction of the nanoplatelets, A_(f) is thenanoplatelet aspect ratio, t is the nanoplatelet thickness, and λ_(d) isthe interparticle distance.

X-ray diffraction helps in understanding the dispersion state ofnanoplatelets within the polymer matrix, by measuring the spacingbetween them. Single layer graphene has a two-dimensional (2D) hexagonallattice. Graphene nanoplatelets with a 3D structure similar to graphite,exhibit “Graphene-2H” characteristic reflections corresponding to the(002) and (004) planes (26.6° and 54.7° 2θ for Cu K_(α) X-rays). PETwith a triclinic crystal structure, primarily exhibits reflectionscorresponding to the (010), (110), (100), and (105) (17.5°, 22.5°,25.6°, and 42.6° 2θ for Cu K_(α) X-rays) planes [48]. Amorphous PETexhibits a broad halo at about 20° 2θ.

Diffraction patterns of the nanocomposites were collected using a 2Ddetector and micro diffraction and a 0.5 mm collimator in reflectancefor crystallinity measurements. Cu K_(α) X-ray radiation (λ=1.54184 Å)was used with a scan time of 60 sec. Percent crystallinity can bedetermined based on the amorphous and crystalline fractions using Eq.(11):

$\begin{matrix}{{X_{c}\%} = {\frac{A_{c}}{A_{a} + A_{c}} \times 100\%}} & (12)\end{matrix}$

Where, A_(c) is the crystalline contribution and A_(α) is the amorphouscontribution.

Sample geometry (I—injection flow direction, T₁—longer dimension of thecross-section, and T₂—thickness) with respect to the instrument geometryis shown in FIG. 23. A 2-D diffraction frame showing the partialdiffraction rings for PET and graphene, indicating the presence ofpreferential orientation is shown in FIG. 23. Location of thenanocomposite samples used for diffraction and tomography are shown inFIG. 24.

As will be recognized, electron microscopy provides only two-dimensionalmicrostructure information of the sample from a small area. In case ofTEM the sample size is only 500 μm×500 μm in area and 70 nm inthickness. Electron microscopy combined with focused ion beam (FIB) canbe useful in attaining microstructure information along the thirddirection. Nevertheless, X-rays have certain advantages over electrons,in imaging materials. Simplicity with sample preparation, choice ofambient or in-situ environments, and less induced damage to the materialare the major advantages. X-ray tomography is a non-destructive imagingtechnique that allows regenerating the 3D structural details ofmaterials.

Tomography is the process of collecting cross-sectional informationeither in transmission or reflection mode, from an illuminated object.Material and geometry information is recorded (radiograph) based on thetransmitted intensity of the X-rays, as illustrated in FIG. 25. Thistransmitted intensity can be related to the material information basedon the material's X-ray absorption coefficient and density, according tothe following equation:I=I ₀ e ^(−μ) ^(m) ^(ρx)  (13)

Where, I is the transmitted X-ray intensity, I₀ is the initial X-rayintensity, μ_(m) is mass attenuation coefficient of the material, ρ isthe material density, and x is the material thickness. Radiographs arereconstructed into cross-sectional slices (tomographs) using Fouriertransform based algorithms. Developments in the field of X-ray anddetector optics have allowed focusing the beam on a much smaller area,thereby attaining nanoscale resolution.

In the current work, X-ray nanotomography was attempted on two differentsamples (nanocomposite tensile bar and tensile tube) with the objectiveof understanding nanoplatelet distribution in three-dimensions.Nanotomography of the sample collected from 15% tensile bar wasperformed on a SkyScan 2011 nano-CT instrument at 272 nm/pixelresolution. For the tensile tube sample of 2% weight fraction(ultrasound processed), wedge sections from the inner and outer surfaceswere scanned on an Xradia 800 Ultra 3D X-ray Microscope at 150 nm/pixelresolution. Reconstructed tomographs were visualized using 3Dvisualization software.

Micromechanical Modeling of Nanocomposites

Continuous fiber composites are often designed or assessed based on asimple empirical formula, referred to as the “Rule of Mixtures”. In thecase of nanoreinforcements, the Rule of Mixtures poorly predicts thefinal properties. Along with the fact that these are not continuousfiber reinforcements, the differences are influenced by the low volumefractions, significant disparity of properties between the matrix andreinforcement, and aspect ratio. For nanocomposites, the spatialinteraction between the nanoplatelets and matrix is important indetermining their elastic behavior. High aspect ratios of thenanoplatelets combined with interactions at the matrix-reinforcementinterface complicate nanocomposite property estimation. Therefore,traditional micromechanical models have been modified to estimate themechanical properties for nanoparticles.

With the objective of understanding the effectiveness of graphenenanoplatelets as reinforcement, micromechanical models such as theHalpin-Tsai and the Hui-Shia models were used to determine thetheoretical elastic mechanical performance of the PET-GNPnanocomposites. These models were simplified micromechanical relationsof continuum based Mori-Tanaka and Hill's methods for predictingcomposite properties, both of which models being designed forunidirectional composites. Aspect ratio of the nanoplatelets dispersedinto the polymer can be determined from the transmission electronmicrographs. In the Halpin-Tsai model, the longitudinal modulus (E₁₁) ofthe composite is predicted using the following equations:

$\begin{matrix}{\frac{E_{11}}{E_{m}} = \frac{1 + {2\; A_{f}{\eta\phi}}}{1 - {\eta\phi}}} & (14) \\{\eta = \frac{E_{r} - 1}{E_{r} + {2\; A_{f}}}} & (15)\end{matrix}$

Where A_(f) is the aspect ratio of the nano-reinforcement (D/t), ϕ isthe volume fraction of the reinforcement, E_(r) is the ratio ofreinforcement modulus to matrix modulus (E_(m)).

In the case of the Hui-Shia model, modulus predictions are made usingthe following equations:

$\begin{matrix}{E_{L} = {E_{m}\left\lbrack {1 - \frac{\phi}{\xi}} \right\rbrack}^{- 1}} & (16) \\{E_{T} = {E_{m}\left\lbrack {1 - {\frac{\phi}{4}\left( {\frac{1}{\xi} + \frac{3}{\xi + \Lambda}} \right)}} \right\rbrack}^{- 1}} & (17) \\{\xi = {\phi + \frac{E_{m}}{E_{f} - E_{m}} + {3{\left( {1 - \phi} \right)\left\lbrack \frac{{\left( {1 - g} \right)\alpha^{2}} - {g/2}}{\alpha^{2} - 1} \right\rbrack}}}} & (18) \\{\Lambda = {\left( {1 - \phi} \right)\left\lbrack \frac{{3\left( {\alpha^{2} + 0.25} \right)g} - {2\alpha^{2}}}{\alpha^{2} - 1} \right\rbrack}} & (19) \\{g = \left\{ \begin{matrix}\left. {\frac{\alpha}{\left( {\alpha^{2} - 1} \right)^{3/2}}\left\lbrack {{\alpha\sqrt{\alpha^{2} - 1}} - {\cosh^{- 1}\alpha}} \right\rbrack}\rightarrow{\alpha \geq 1} \right. \\\left. {\frac{\alpha}{\left( {1 - \alpha^{2}} \right)^{3/2}}\left\lbrack {{{- \alpha}\sqrt{1 - \alpha^{2}}} + {\cosh^{- 1}\alpha}} \right\rbrack}\rightarrow{\alpha \leq 1} \right.\end{matrix} \right.} & (20)\end{matrix}$

Where, ϕ is the volume fraction of the reinforcement, α is the inverseaspect ratio (t/D), E_(m) is the Young's modulus of the matrix (PET),and E_(f) is the Young's modulus of the reinforcement phase (graphenenanoplatelets).

Results

With the objective of improving the properties of PET, graphenenanoplatelets were compounded with PET and injection molded intonanocomposites of specific loading rates. Nanocomposites obtained fromthis process were evaluated for their mechanical, thermal, andrheological properties to understand the effectiveness of graphenenanoplatelets.

Average Molecular Weight

The average molecular weight was obtained from Gel PermeationChromatography (GPC), for the following samples: control PET, ultrasoundtreated PET, ultrasound treated nanocomposite master-batch (5% GNP), andtwin-screw compounded master-batch with 5% GNP weight fraction.Comparing master-batches with similar GNP weight fraction can be helpfulin understanding changes that occurred due to the presence of graphene.

Based on the weight average molecular weight (M_(w)), shown in FIG. 26,the following observations were made. First, the average molecularweight changes with twin-screw processing, irrespective of ultrasoundtreatment. A decrease in the molecular weight through ultrasoundtreatment alone is less significant compared to the drop from twin-screwcompounding.

In addition to the above observations, it is also noticed that the dropin molecular weight increased with the presence of graphene. From themolecular weight measurements, ultrasound treated samples have shown apolydispersity index (ratio of weight average to number averagemolecular weight) of 1.8 and 1.9 for nanocomposites with 5% GNP.

Intrinsic Viscosity

Intrinsic Viscosity (I.V.) is the most commonly denoted number inreference to discussions comparing properties of polyethyleneterephthalate. Therefore, the intrinsic viscosity of PET and ultrasoundtreated PET samples, shown in FIG. 27, were obtained by capillaryviscometer using polymer dissolved solvents.

Correlating the experimentally obtained viscosities with the viscositiescalculated by means of the weight average molecular weight, usingEquation 5, Mark-Houwink parameters ‘K’ and ‘a’ were optimized to therespective values 0.00047 and 0.658. Using the new constants, intrinsicviscosity for the nanocomposite samples was obtained. Calculatedviscosity values for both PET and PET nanocomposite samples arepresented in FIG. 28.

Intrinsic viscosities for the in-situ polymerized PET and nanocompositepellets, collected experimentally are shown in FIG. 29, all of which areshowing viscosities in the range of 0.6 dL/g.

Mechanical Behavior

Stress-strain curves for the tensile bar samples are presented in FIG.30. Young's modulus was obtained from the initial region of thestress-strain curve. Young's modulus and strength data for thenanocomposite tensile bars (Set-A) are presented in FIG. 31. A decreasein strength of the nanocomposites when compared with the control PET wasobserved. Further, nanocomposites had a brittle failure with a loss inelongation, compared with the control PET sample.

Using a custom fixture, PET and nanocomposite tensile tubes and bars,shown in FIGS. 32(a)-(b), were tested for their mechanical properties.Young's modulus and the tensile strength of PET and nanocomposites areshown in FIG. 33. The PET modulus from the tensile tube was found to beless than the tensile bar samples (difference of 0.2 GPa), as thetensile bars exhibited thermal crystallinity due to slower cooling(19%). The modulus of the nanocomposites increased with increasing GNPcontent. However, the strength of the nanocomposites remained the sameas PET, except in the case of a 2% sample. Stress-strain curves for PETtensile bar (2% GNP) and nanocomposite tensile tubes of low GNP weightfractions (0.6% and 1.2% GNP) are compared in FIG. 34. FIG. 34 showsthat the nanocomposites are tougher (area under the stress-strain curve)than PET. The Young's modulus for the 2% nanocomposite was identicalfrom the two different injection molding processes used (3.1 GPa).However, nanocomposite tubes with 2% GNP loading deviated in the type offailure with respect to lower weight fractions. At 2% GNP loading,nanocomposites exhibited only 1% strain which is significantly lowercompared to failure strain for 1.2% GNP loading (400%).

Tensile bars of PET and ultrasound treated PET obtained from the microinjection molding process were tested for their mechanical properties.FIG. 35 compares the Young's modulus and strength data for ultrasoundtreated PET with control PET. It was observed that the ultrasoundtreatment of PET did not have a significant effect on its modulus andstrength. However, the ultimate tensile strength (tensile strength atbreaking) for the ultrasound treated PET increased significantly (by24%), as shown in FIG. 36.

Using the ultrasound treated master-batch pellets; nanocomposite tensiletubes at 2% GNP loading were prepared and tested for comparison withnanocomposites from twin-screw compounding. Nanocomposites prepared fromcompounded pellets treated with different ultrasound amplitudes showimprovement in Young's modulus and tensile strength. Improvement inmodulus for nanocomposites with 3.5 μm ultrasound amplitude was higher(2.7 GPa-12% improvement) compared with other ultrasound treatments, asshown in FIG. 37. Nevertheless, the increase in modulus for ultrasoundtreated 2% nanocomposites is lower compared with the twin-screwcompounded nanocomposites at 2% GNP (3.1 GPa-24% improvement).Ultrasound treated nanocomposites displayed yielding behavior similar toPET, but with only 3% maximum improvement in strength.

Nanocomposites prepared through dilution of ultrasound treatedmaster-batch did not provide conclusive evidence to understand thechange in mechanical properties. Therefore, tensile bars with 5% GNPweight fraction were obtained from micro injection molding system, usingthe ultrasound treated master-batch pellets (with no dilution of GNPweight fraction). The Young's modulus and the tensile strength of the 5%GNP nanocomposite tensile bars were compared with control PET andtensile bars prepared using 5% pellets from twin-screw compoundingprocess, as shown in FIG. 38. While the strength data indicate arecovery in tensile strength with increase in ultrasound amplitude, themodulus data points out that the improvement from ultrasound treatmentis not significant compared to the regular twin-screw mixing.

Tensile bars of PET control and nanocomposites with 0.1% GNP weightfraction obtained from the polymerization process were tested for theirmechanical properties. FIG. 39 compares the Young's modulus and strengthdata for PET and nanocomposites with 0.1% GNP of different surfaceareas. While there is no significant difference in the modulus of thenanocomposites, strength exhibited two different trends. Ultimatestrength of the nanocomposites shows significant (minimum 16%)improvement over the PET control. On the contrary, tensile strength ofthe nanocomposites decreased slightly (by 5%) over PET.

Density Measurements

Densities for the nanocomposites were measured using Archimedes'principle. The densities of the nanocomposites were different from thetheoretical values estimated based on amorphous PET and graphene.Comparison of densities between the molded PET tensile bars and tensiletubes, indicate that the tensile bars were semi-crystalline (19%crystallinity), based on Eq. 2. Density measurements from thenanocomposite samples deviate from theoretical values, based on the Ruleof Mixtures. In order to make a better comparison of the strength ofnanocomposites, densities were collected for samples before testing andused to estimate their specific strength, as presented in FIGS.39(a)-(c). Specific strength values presented in FIGS. 39(a)-(c) show nosignificant loss or improvement in strength of PET with GNPs, except forthe nanocomposite tensile tubes with 2% GNP weight fraction.

Scanning Electron Microscopy

Comparing the stress-strain curves of nanocomposites with PET shows thatthe failure strain (elongation) of the nanocomposite tensile barsdecreased. To understand the type and reasons for the failure ofnanocomposites, scanning electron micrographs were collected. Fracturesurface micrographs show the presence of micro voids, as shown in FIGS.40(a) and 40(b). Moisture present in the pellets can give rise to voidsduring their processing. Therefore, the increase in the stressconcentration near the voids contributed in lowering the strength of thenanocomposite tensile bars. Initiation of the crack from the void, asshown in the fracture surface micrographs, FIG. 40(b), confirms thisobservation.

Similar observations were made from the micrographs of the fracturesurface of nanocomposite tensile tubes with 2% GNP weight fraction.Nanocomposite tensile tube showed signs of “ductile fracture”, as shownin FIGS. 41(a) and 41(b). Voids observed in this set of samples are verysmall <10 μm in size, pointed with arrows in FIG. 41(a). Localizedductile deformation of the polymer matrix through fibril stretching,surrounding the micro voids can increase the local stress concentration.This increase in the stress concentration can initiate cracks, whichlead to the brittle fracture of the nanocomposite.

At higher magnification, graphene nanoplatelets were observed on thefracture surfaces. Nanoplatelets, as pointed out in the SEM micrographsshown in FIGS. 42(a)-(d), are projecting out of plane to indicate theywere exposed during the failure and were part of load sharing. At highernanoplatelets content (15%), the microstructure of the nanocomposite isdifferent from others with more local fractures. One difficulty with thenanocomposite is the ability to make clear amorphous samples. Havingclear PET tensile bars helps eliminate defects caused by poorprocessing, such as voids. Since these nanocomposites are dark the voidsmust generally wait to be visually observed by destructive methods.

Ultrasound Imaging

A nondestructive alternative to imaging voids is ultrasound imaging.Ultrasound micrographs of the tensile bars from the ultrasound “BulkScan” are shown in FIG. 43. These micrographs show the presence of voidsalong the length of the tensile bar. Based on the micrographs, it wasinferred that the voids are a result of processing. Further, densitiesof the ultrasound imaged samples were compared with the mechanical teststo confirm that the deviation in the densities is due to the presence ofvoids.

Thermal Analysis

The melt and crystallization behavior of the nanocomposites was analyzedthrough DSC measurements. FIG. 44 presents the glass transition (T_(g))and melting temperatures (T_(m)) from the second heating cycle andcrystallization temperature (T_(c)) from the first cooling cycle,plotted with respect to the GNP weight fractions for twin-screwcompounded pellets. While the melting temperature shifted to highervalues with increasing GNPs, the glass transition showed a decreasedtrend except for at 15% weight fraction. A decrease in the glasstransition temperature as shown in FIG. 44 can be due to theagglomeration of nanoplatelets inside the PET matrix. Agglomeratedplatelets can act as plasticizers and affect the glass-transitiontemperature.

Both crystallization and melt temperatures increased with increasing GNPcontent. The melting temperature of PET is dependent on the crystalshape and size. As shown in FIG. 44, the addition of GNPs increases themelting temperature. This can be due to the formation of larger and moreperfect crystals indicated by the higher (10° C. to 18° C.)crystallization temperature and expected with the presence of nucleationsites (i.e., nanoplatelets). While the change in melting temperature issmall, the crystallization temperature increased with increasing GNPcontent. Increases in the crystallization temperature are due to anucleation effect from the presence of GNPs which become stronger withthe increasing GNP weight fraction. The change in crystallizationtemperature and shape of the exothermic peak with GNP weight fraction isshown in FIG. 46.

Using the crystallization exotherms for nanocomposite pellets, presentedin FIG. 46, on-set temperatures (T_(on)) were obtained to determine thecrystallization half-time (t_(1/2)) by way of Eq. (7). It was observedthat with an increase in the GNP content, the crystallization half-time(inverse of crystallization rate) increased. A decrease in thecrystallization rate indicates that with an increase in the GNP content,PET chain mobility is affected. As a result, the crystallinity of thenanocomposites decreased at higher graphene loadings, as shown in FIG.45.

The percentage crystallinity presented in FIG. 45 (right), for the asreceived injection molded tensile bars was measured through DifferentialScanning calorimetry (DSC). The crystallinity measured for the injectionmolded nanocomposites shows a similar trend to the non-isothermalcrystallinity obtained through DSC. This confirms the above observationthat an increase in GNP allows early nucleation of PET, but restrictschain mobility.

Ultrasound treated PET and PET-5% GNP nanocomposite pellets wereanalyzed for their change in thermal properties. Glass transition andmelting temperatures are presented in FIG. 47. The glass transitiontemperature of PET decreased with the addition of GNPs for the noultrasound condition (0 USM). Ultrasound treatment was observed to havean effect on the glass transition temperature (T_(g)) of both PET andPET nanocomposites. For PET, the glass transition followed a decreasingtrend except for at the 7.5 μm amplitude. The change in ‘T_(g)’ for PETpoints towards polymer softening with increase in ultrasound amplitude.The glass transition temperature for nanocomposites increased with theultrasound amplitude. However, the ‘T_(g)’ of the nanocomposite wasstill lower than PET. Crystallization temperatures for PET and PET-5%GNP pellets remained constant regardless of the ultrasound amplitude, at194° C. and 214° C. respectively.

Multiple melting peaks were observed in the melting endotherm forultrasound treated PET, as demonstrated in FIG. 48. Multiple meltingpeaks indicate the presence of different crystals sizes, potentiallyindicating at a broader molecular weight distribution.

The crystallization half-time (t_(1/2)) for PET decreased withultrasound treatment. With the addition of GNPs the ‘t_(1/2)’ increasedfor all the ultrasound amplitudes, as shown in FIG. 49. The increase inthe crystallization half-time for the 5 μm amplitude conditionnanocomposite was less compared to other ultrasound amplitudes.Non-isothermal crystallinity for the ultrasound treated PET increasedwith the increase in amplitude, except for the case of 7.5 μm amplitude.Presence of graphene increased the crystallinity, however maximum changein crystallinity was observed only in the case of 7.5 μm amplitude.

Tensile bars of ultrasound treated PET and PET nanocomposites obtainedfrom micro injection molding were evaluated for percentagecrystallinity. Under similar conditions, ultrasound treated PET sampleshave 8% crystallinity and ultrasound treated nanocomposites have 11 to13% crystallinity.

PET control and nanocomposites obtained from in-situ polymerization wereevaluated for their crystallization behavior. At 0.1% loading, graphenenanoplatelets with a higher average surface area (750 m²/g) had astronger nucleation effect compared to nanoplatelets with lower averagesurface area (120 m²/g). Crystallization temperature and thenon-isothermal crystallinity are higher for high surface area graphene,as shown in FIG. 50.

Dispersion Studies

Melt rheology of the nanocomposites was studied to understand the extentof nanoplatelet dispersion in PET. Dynamic frequency sweeps for thenanocomposite pellets from twin-screw compounding along with control PETare presented in FIG. 51. The shear storage modulus (G′) of PETdecreased linearly with frequency. The addition of graphenenanoplatelets to PET improved its modulus (G′). In the case of PET-2%GNP nanocomposite pellets, the modulus (G′) transitioned from a linearregion (dependent) to a plateau (independent of the angular frequency)below 0.3 rad/s. This transition point for 5% nanocomposite moved up to64 rad/s frequency. Nanocomposites with 10% and 15% GNP weightfractions, exhibited rigid behavior even when tested at 320° C. with agap of 1.6 mm (melt thickness between parallel plates). The percolationthreshold (ϕ_(per)) for twin-screw compounded PET-GNP nanocomposites wasdetermined to be 1.75% wt. (1.1% vol.), based on the linear regressionof the G′ values at 0.1 rad/s for 2% and 5% samples, as illustrated inFIG. 52. The nanoplatelet aspect ratio at the percolation threshold wasevaluated as 40, based on Eq. (8).

Ultrasound assisted compounding of PET and graphene nanoplatelets showedmore linear response compared to twin-screw compounding for the sameweight fraction (5%), as demonstrated in FIG. 53. At low frequencies,nanocomposites with a lower ultrasound amplitude exhibited higherstorage moduli. This indicates that increasing the ultrasound amplitudehas an effect on nanoplatelet dispersion. As the moduli at higherfrequencies are an indication of the polymer behavior, a decrease in themoduli compared to the PET control hints at change in the polymerstructure. Comparing the ultrasound processed PET with the PET control,as shown in FIG. 54, indicates that the shear modulus of PET at higherfrequencies increased for lower (3.5 μm and 5 μm) ultrasound amplitudes.Additionally, the modulus at lower frequencies increased for sampleswithout (0 μm) and at 7.5 μm ultrasound amplitude conditions. Based onthe data shown in FIGS. 53 and 54, the ultrasound amplitude of 5 μm wasfound to have less effect on PET, while also indicating an improvementin the dispersion of graphene nanoplatelets.

Transmission micrographs were collected for nanocomposite tensile barsof 5% and 15% weight fraction. Even though there are few layeredgraphene, as shown in FIGS. 56(a) and (b), transmission micrographs ofthe nanocomposites indicate that the graphene nanoplatelets are notcompletely exfoliated in the PET matrix. Micrographs shown in FIGS.55(a) and (b) indicate that the nanoplatelets are distributed in thematrix, with regions of high concentration.

Average dimensions (thickness and length) of the nanoplatelets obtainedfrom TEM micrographs were used as input parameters to evaluatemicromechanical models. The interparticle distance for graphenenanoplatelets inside the PET matrix was determined using binarized TEMimages. Converting the micrographs to binary images allowed separatingthe nanoplatelets (darker regions) from the polymer matrix, as shown inFIG. 57. Interparticle distance for 5% and 15% nanocomposites weredetermined as 2800 nm and 520 nm respectively, as shown in FIG. 58. Thischange in the interparticle distance can be because of the increase inconcentration of graphene nanoplatelets, which can affect thedispersion. Theoretical interparticle distance for graphenenanoplatelets of known aspect ratio 40 (obtained from rheologicalmeasurements), were plotted against the calculated values based on TEM,as shown in FIG. 58.

Diffraction patterns acquired from the graphene nanoplatelets, PET, andPET-GNP nanocomposite tensile bars are shown in FIG. 59. Peak broadeningobserved for the graphene peak at 26.6° 2θ is indicative of the presenceof platelets with different d-spacing. The intensity of the graphenepeak at 26.6° 2θ increased with weight fraction of the nanoplatelets.However, no peak shift was observed as in the case of an exfoliatednanocomposite. PET and nanocomposite tensile bars exhibit a broadamorphous halo around 19.2° 2θ.

Diffraction scans indicate that the PET tensile bar is amorphous.However, density measurements and visual observations contradict this.Therefore, diffraction scans were collected across the cross-section ofthe PET tensile bar, to confirm the presence of a crystalline core withan amorphous outer layer. Slower cooling rates during the oil cooledinjection molding process result in the formation of a significantlydifferent skin and core microstructure. Data from the diffraction linescan along the thickness are presented in FIGS. 60(a)-(b). In order tohave a better understanding on the microstructure of the nanocomposites,a similar line scan was performed along the thickness of the 15% tensilebar, presented in FIG. 61. It was observed that intensity of thegraphene peak changes along the thickness of the sample, with higherintensity at the center. Further, crystallization of PET was alsoobserved towards the core of the sample, as denoted by arrows labeled“PET” in FIG. 61.

Diffraction analysis on the nanocomposite tensile tubes indicate acompletely amorphous microstructure and addition of GNPs did notincrease the crystallization of PET. 2D diffraction frames indicate thatthe GNPs are oriented at the surface due to the injection flow stresses.

Using the reconstructed tomographs for the sample collected from the 15%nanocomposite tensile bar, the distribution of nanoplatelets inside thePET matrix was visualized as shown in FIGS. 62(a)-(b). Based onobservations from the reconstructed volume, nanoplatelets were found tobe oriented along the flow direction about 200 μm in depth from surface(along the Y-axis direction). Nanoplatelets with random orientation andcurved platelets as well were observed from this data.

3D X-ray microscopy of the samples (wedge shape) collected from thenanocomposite tensile tube has shown that the extent of nanoplateletorientation was smaller than in the tensile bar. FIGS. 63(a)-(b) showsthe 3D distribution of the nanoplatelets on the inside surface of thetensile tube. As seen from the picture, nanoplatelets are oriented inthe flow direction, parallel to the surface only up to 15.6 μm inthickness. For the outside surface, alignment with the flow was limitedto a 7.5 μm thickness.

Raman spectrum for PET and PET nanocomposites were collected to analyzethe dispersion of graphene nanoplatelets. The Raman spectrums indicatethat the nanoplatelets dispersed in to the PET matrix are multi layered.As stated earlier, Raman spectroscopy can also be used to determine thepresence of π-π interactions between PET and graphene layers. FIG. 64shows the Raman bands (˜1617 cm⁻¹) corresponding to C—C stretching forPET and nanocomposites with increasing GNP content. A change in the bandpositions determined from peak fits can be observed in FIG. 65. Thisshift in the Raman band (˜1617 cm⁻¹) corresponding to C—C stretching inthe phenyl ring of PET is an indication of the interaction withgraphene. Further, the full width at half maximum for the Raman bandcorresponding to C═O stretching (˜1730 cm⁻¹) was evaluated to understandthe effect graphene has on PET chain mobility. Peak broadening for the1730 cm⁻¹ Raman band (C═O stretching), perceived to be an indicator forchain mobility in amorphous PET was not observed here. This can be dueto the highly oriented structure at the surface of the tensile barsobtained from injection molding. Even though the surface is amorphousfor these nanocomposites, the highly oriented structure will reduce theprobability of having multiple chain rotations thereby limiting the bandwidth. In accordance therewith, FIG. 66(a) shows a table listingproperties of GNP and PET for micromechanical model based predictions inaccordance with the present disclosure.

Micromechanical Modeling

Single layer graphene is known for its high strength and stiffness.Nevertheless, dispersing graphene nanoplatelets solely into single layergraphene was not realized here. Some fraction of the mixture is likelysingle layer, but a majority was not. Studies on multi-layer graphenehave shown that when the number of layers is less than 10, propertiesare similar to that of a single layer. In the case of nanoplatelets withmore than a few layers, its mechanical behavior has been found to besimilar to a graphite flake. For that reason, the modulus of thegraphene nanoplatelet was considered to be 0.795 TPa, similar to highlyoriented graphite.

Improvement in the properties of a nanocomposite depends on the extentof nanoplatelet dispersion. Based on the measurements from TEMmicrographs, graphene nanoplatelets with different length (diameter ofthe platelets) and thickness were observed. FIG. 66 shows the averagesize of the platelets with minimum and maximum values. Predicted moduliof the nanocomposite from Halpin-Tsai and Hui-Shia micromechanicalmodels are plotted against the experimental results, as shown in FIG.66. In order to compare with the moduli from nanocomposite tensile bars,modulus of semi-crystalline PET obtained from PET tensile bars was usedas the model input properties. Using the average platelet properties andtheir standard deviations, modulus limits for the nanocomposites werecalculated. Upper and lower limits for the predicted modulus arepresented in FIG. 66 by means of error bars. Comparison of the modulusdata from with experimental data indicate that Hui-Shia modelpredictions are close to the experimental values.

Using the Hui-Shia model for nanoplatelets loaded along the length(i.e., in direction ‘1 or 2’) of the nanoplatelets, the nanocompositemodulus with respect to platelet aspect ratios may be plotted as shownin FIG. 67. Modulus data for nanoplatelet aspect ratios from TEMmeasurements (average and the upper limit), melt rheology, and for anideal dispersion condition (single layer graphene) were plotted. Basedon the micromechanical model, it was observed that the predictedproperties are more sensitive to nanoplatelets aspect ratio than theirproperties. For ideal dispersion condition, modulus of graphene singlelayer 1.02 TPa was used. Modulus of amorphous PET obtained frominjection molded tensile tubes was used for the model data shown in FIG.67.

Comparing the experimental modulus with the predicted modulus indicatethat the nanocomposites with lower GNP weight fractions have higheraspect ratios. For nanocomposites (0.5%, 0.6%, and 1.2%) preparedthrough a dilution of the master-batch (as mentioned in FIG. 16(c)), itwas observed that master-batches with low GNP content yielded higheraspect ratios. This can be explained by considering the gentlerprocessing seen when diluting a master-batch which was done with asingle screw rather than a twin screw.

Discussion

Polyethylene terephthalate—graphene nanoplatelet nanocomposites wereprepared through injection molding. Master-batch pellets from twin-screwcompounding and ultrasound-assisted twin-screw compounding werecharacterized for their mechanical and thermal properties. In thischapter, the effect of ultrasound on PET properties, the type ofinteraction between graphene and PET, the mechanics behind the propertychange, the effect of compounding and injection molding, and theapplicability of micromechanical models in evaluating the nanocompositesare discussed.

Effect of Ultrasound Treatment on PET

Ultrasound-assisted extrusion was used in the current study to dispersegraphene nanoplatelets in the PET matrix. With no literature availableto understand the effect of ultrasound on PET, ultrasound treated PETwas also analyzed here. During ultrasound-assisted extrusion, energyapplied (in the form of ultrasound waves) to the polymer can increasethe melt temperature locally as a result of acoustic cavitation.Cavitation will not only aid in exfoliating the nanoplatelets, but canalso potentially change the polymer. The average molecular weight fromthe GPC measurements on ultrasound treated PET indicates that themolecular weight decreased with increasing ultrasound amplitude.

Nevertheless, the molecular weight for PET with no ultrasound treatmentalso decreased. Based on the data, it is understood that the decrease inmolecular weight is primarily from the extrusion process (15%) andultrasound treatment has a minimal (5% drop) effect on the molecularweight.

Mechanical testing of the ultrasound treated PET did not show asignificant difference in Young's modulus and tensile strength.Nevertheless, ultrasound treated specimens did show an improvement inultimate strength (strength at break) and exhibited higher toughnesscompared to PET control, as may be seen by way of FIGS. 36 and 68.

PET degradation involves three different processes; they are:hydrolysis, thermal degradation and oxidation. During the extrusionprocess, polymer degradation can take place through one or moreabovementioned processes and result in chain scission. Some condensationreaction can also occur, which lengthens the chain. An increase in thetoughness of PET from ultrasound treatment indicates ultrasound indeedaltered the PET molecular chains. Thermal analysis (DSC and Rheology) ofthe ultrasound treated PET hint at entanglement through branching ofPET. Entanglement of polymer chains results in an increase in the shearmodulus (G′) at lower frequencies as observed in FIG. 54. This alsoexplains the increase in the ‘T_(g)’ for PET treated at 7.5 μmamplitude. Polymer with lower molecular weight (shorter chain length)exhibits a lower glass transition temperature, when compared with a highmolecular weight grade. Then again, presence of entanglements(cross-linking or chain branching) will restrict the chain mobility,therefore increases the glass transition temperature. With the drop inthe molecular weight at 7.5 mm amplitude is less significant compared toother amplitudes; increase in the glass transition temperature can beprimarily due to the presence of entanglements in PET molecular chain.

Similar observations of an increase in the breaking strength has beenreported for PET polymerized with low levels of branching agenttrimethyl trimellitate (TMT). At low levels (>0.4%) of branching agent,there is a significant increase (25%) in the break strength even with nosigns of crosslinking from GPC measurements.

Wetability and Interaction of Graphene with PET

In the selection of nanoreinforcements, compatibility with the polymeris one important factor. Two polymers are considered compatible (ormiscible to form homogenous mixtures) when the difference in theirsurface energies is small. An increase in the difference in surfaceenergies can lead to phase separation. Likewise, similar surfaceenergies between the polymer and its nanoreinforcement aids indispersion. PET is slightly polar, due to the presence of the C═O bondin the molecular chain. PET's surface energy is 41.1 mJ/m². Graphene'ssurface energy is similar at 46.7 mJ/m². Though higher than PET andhydrophobic, graphene is much closer than graphene oxide (62.1 mJ/m²)and graphite (54.8 mJ/m²). This places graphene as a more compatiblenanoreinforcement for PET. In general, graphene is considered difficultto disperse as individual sheets into any polymer matrix. It shows atendency to agglomerate in order to minimize surface energy. Therefore,applying external energy through different mixing techniques isnecessary to disrupt agglomerates and to distribute them into thepolymer matrix. As mentioned earlier, PET is a highly viscous polymerwith a high melting temperature. This drove the selection of twin-screwand ultrasound-assisted twin-screw mixing techniques for the dispersionof graphene nanoplatelets.

As stated previously, PET is chemically inert except for strong alkalisolvents. Therefore, PET does not react with pristine graphene.Nevertheless, graphene (similar to CNTs) is known to have non-covalentinteractions with aromatic compounds due to n-n stacking of benzene withgraphene. While graphene sheets inside graphite have similararomatic-aromatic (π-π) interactions, their energy is estimated (˜8×1011eV/cm²) to be lower than that of a graphene and benzene system(˜8.4λ1014 eV/cm²). Those skilled in the art will recognize that themagnitude of the π-π interaction increases with an increase in thedensity of hydrogen atoms in the graphene-aromatic molecule system(i.e., stronger dipoles). This explains the difference in binding energyfor the graphene-benzene interaction compared to a graphene-grapheneinteraction.

PET is an aromatic polyester with a nearly planar molecular chainconfiguration. This makes it more favorable for the π-π interaction withgraphene nanoplatelets. The presence of the π-π interaction between PETand graphene nanoplatelets is detected in the form of a shift in theRaman peak corresponding to C—C stretching in phenyl ring (FIG. 65). Inaddition, graphene nanoplatelets used in this work have a lowconcentration of polar functional groups such as, hydroxyl, carboxyl andether on the edges (FIG. 7). Polar groups available with thenanoplatelets are likely to interact with polar groups of PET. Theaforementioned interactions between PET and graphene are advantageous ininfluencing the properties of the nanocomposite.

Stress Transfer Between PET and Graphene

PET-GNP nanocomposites showed an improvement in Young's modulus, asdemonstrated in FIG. 31. This increase in modulus of the nanocompositestakes place because of the effective transfer of stresses from PET toGNPs. For such a stiff reinforcement, load transfer between the polymerand reinforcement is governed by the strength of its interface, which isdirectly proportional to the thermodynamic work of adhesion (W_(a)).Adhesion energy between PET and graphene was determined to be 84.6 mJ/m²by way of Eq. (21) below. The total surface energy for graphene is 46.7mJ/m². The polar and non-polar components of PET surface energy werefound to be 2.7 mJ/m² and 38.4 mJ/m².W _(a)=2√{square root over (γ_(p) ^(LW)γ_(g) ^(LW))}+2√{square root over(γ_(p) ^(AB)γ_(g) ^(AB))}  (21)

Where, γ^(LW) is the Lifshitz-van der Waals (non-polar or dispersion)component of surface energy, γ^(AB) is the Lewis acid-base (polar)component of surface energy, for polymer and graphene, andγ=γ^(LW)+γ^(AB).

Those skilled in the art will recognized that the interfacial shearstrength has been quantified to be 0.46 to 0.69 MPa, for a pristinesingle layer graphene in contact with a PET substrate (other surface ofgraphene in contact with air). As this value is for contact betweenpristine surfaces with no-polar group interactions, interfacial strengthfor the nanocomposites in this study will likely be higher than 0.69MPa. Moreover, it has been found that even though graphene nanoplateletshave less interfacial adhesion with PET, compared to clay, nanoplateletsdispersed well in PET.

An increase in weight fraction of GNPs resulted in a decrease of theinterparticle distance, as quantified from TEM micrographs shown in FIG.58. For nanocomposite pellets with 15% loading, the interparticledistance was determined as 520 nm, which is larger than theinterparticle distance of 200 nm, which has been reported for 2%graphene (with higher surface area, 750 m²/g).

As nanoplatelets get closer to each other, the number of polymer chainsinfluenced by the presence of nanoplatelets will increase, as shown inFIG. 69(a)-(b). An increase in the volume of nanoplatelet affectedpolymers will stiffen the polymer. As may be observed by way of FIG. 70,with an increase in GNP weight fraction, the nanocomposite modulusincreases exponentially. This behavior clearly depicts that load sharingof GNPs increases with increase in weight fraction.

At higher weight fractions of GNPs, the stress-strain curves indicate amore complex yielding behavior, as indicated in FIG. 71.Platelet-platelet interaction is not likely at low fractions. Not onlyis the platelet volume fraction important, the platelet surface area atthat volume fraction is important. At higher volume fractions a lowsurface area platelet is expected to have a similar benefit as a highsurface area platelet at lower fractions. However, eventually, theplatelets begin to interact across the matrix and that interaction willimpact yielding behavior. Platelet-platelet bonding is much weaker thanplatelet-matrix bonds. In this case, we started to see more pronouncedevidence of this interaction above 10% volume fraction platelets.

Nanocomposites Microstructure and Application of Micromechanical Models

Micromechanical models based on Hui-Shia formulae have closely predictedthe nanocomposite properties compared to Halpin-Tsai. In the beginningthey were developed to model the properties of semi-crystallinepolymers, by considering the crystalline domains as a reinforcementphase in an amorphous matrix. These micromechanical models were lateradapted to model micro-composites. Key assumptions for theabovementioned models are: uniform interface between the polymer andreinforcement, oriented in the loading direction, and uniform aspectratio of the reinforcement. Nevertheless, nanoplatelets dispersed in thenanocomposites are not completely oriented along the loading axis (i.e.,the injection direction), as observed from nanotomography illustrated inFIGS. 62 and 63(b). For instance, in nanocomposite tensile bars, GNPorientation due to flow stresses was witnessed only to a 200 μm depthfrom surface, and in the case of tensile tubes, this was even less (15μm depth from surface). This shows that the bulk core of thenanocomposite has more randomly oriented nanoplatelets. Increases in theinjection molding speed and the cooling rate has resulted in limitednanoplatelet orientation.

During injection molding, polymer melt flowing through the mold channelsexperiences shear forces. This shearing action is due to the temperaturegradient induced by the low temperature mold walls. As the polymer meltstarts solidifying (in thickness), increasing shear forces produce alayered structure along the thickness, with highly oriented layers onthe outer surface. Some have speculated that this layer would be 0.1 mmthick. The rate of cooling determines the thickness of the orientedlayers. Nanotomography allowed quantifying the thickness of the skinlayers and this is a first of its kind observation of this layer. Asobserved with the tensile tube, the difference in the oriented layerthickness is likely due to the more effective cooling rate from thecurvature of the surface and the mold design. Comparing the tensile tubedata with the tensile bar data shows that the thickness of the orientedsurface layer is higher in the tensile bar. This is consistent with theslower cooling and injection speed compared to the tensile tube.

One of the observations from nanotomography was that the aspect ratio ofplatelets was not uniform for the nanocomposite. The aspect ratio of thenanoplatelets from rheological measurements and transmission electronmicroscopy were determined to be 40 and 18.75. Taking these as limits onthe aspect ratios, moduli of the nanocomposites are predicted. Comparingthe experimental data with predicted modulus trends for different aspectratios, as shown in FIG. 67, has highlighted that the nanocompositesindeed have different average aspect ratios and increased with increasein GNP weight fraction.

Graphene nanoplatelets used in this work are of an average diameter(length) 5 μm. As will be appreciated, this dimension is much lower thanthe size of 30 μm for pristine graphene, which has been estimated toeffectively reinforce polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA). It will be furtherappreciated that it has been indicated that graphene with reducedstiffness (drop in modulus from 1000 GPa to 100 GPa) will be lesseffective in reinforcing glassy polymers (e.g. PET) as compared toelastomers. As mentioned earlier, graphene with more than 10 layers canhave reduced stiffness. Aforementioned factors reinforce the need tohave detailed information on the microstructure of nanocomposites forthe application of micromechanical models to predict properties.

Effect of Graphene Nanoplatelets on PET Properties and Molecular ChainMobility

The nanocomposite tensile bars from oil cooled molding exhibited around20% crystallinity. Using a high-speed injection molding system with afaster cooling rate, nanocomposite tensile tubes were prepared withbetter control on the crystallization of PET during injection molding.Through this process, nanocomposites with GNP weight fractions from 2%to 0.5% were prepared and tested. Comparing the modulus ofnanocomposites with 2% GNP, indicated in FIGS. 31 and 33, from both theprocesses (water cooled and oil cooled injection molding), shows animprovement in modulus with the change in process. For the tensile tubeswith 2% GNP, the modulus increased from 2.5 GPa (amorphous modulus ofPET) to 3.1 GPa (7% higher than tensile bars). Another importantobservation was that the presence of voids in the 2% nanocomposite haslittle effect on its modulus. On the other hand, the presence of voids(from processing) resulted in premature failure and a reduction ofstrength. As observed from the SEM micrographs of nanocomposite fracturesurfaces, shown in FIGS. 40 and 41, the voids acted as stressconcentration points and led to failure. The strength of thenanocomposite tensile tubes at low GNP weight fractions displayed aminimal increase, as shown in FIG. 33.

In general, the addition of GNPs to PET did not affect strength. This isexpected since the weight fraction is low and the matrix will dominateflow behavior typical for yielding. It is also helpful to realize thatthe lack of chemical linkage (bonding) between PET and GNP reduces theGNP influence on yield and toughness. As discussed in earlier sections,interfacial interactions between PET and GNPs are favorable for initialstress transfer. With increase in strain, interfacial sliding startsbetween PET and GNPs, this precludes GNPs from sharing the failure load.As strength of the material depends on the weakest element, thenanocomposite strength remained similar to PET.

It is inferred from rheology and thermal analysis data that the presenceof graphene nanoplatelets at higher weight fractions influences themobility of PET molecular chain. Higher GNP weight fractions will resultin the development of a continuous network, as represented in FIG.69(a)-(b), that will change the deformation behavior of PET. As observedfrom mechanical testing that up to 2% GNP weight fraction nanocompositesare tougher than PET, with increased failure strain. As PET failuretakes place as a result of the through thickness propagation of surfacecrazes, the presence of graphene nanoplatelets in PET matrix can actagainst it through crack deflection. Nanoplatelets extending out of thefracture surface, as observed from the SEM micrographs in FIG. 42,support the above observation. On the other hand, nanocomposites above2% GNP weight fraction exhibited brittle failure. The graphenenanoplatelets weight fraction at which this transition was observedagrees with the percolation limit from Rheology measurements.

Using Raman spectroscopy, it has been shown that an increase in grapheneconcentration restricts the mobility of PET chains. The Raman spectrumshown in FIG. 5, did not show change in peak width, as thenanocomposites from injection molding exhibited highly orientedamorphous surface layer. Oriented PET chains will limit the number ofchain configurations possible, thereby restricting the rotation of C═Oisomers which cause peak broadening.

Thermal analysis of the nanocomposites showed that the addition of GNPsaffected PET crystallization. Graphene nanoplatelets can act asnucleation sites and promote crystallization, with an increase in thecrystallization temperature. Nevertheless, reduced PET chain mobilitywith an increase in the nanoplatelet fraction (confinement effect),counters the nucleation effect. A combination of these opposing effectsled to the increase in crystallization half-time and decreased theamount of crystallinity, as indicated in FIG. 45. As the interparticledistance became smaller with an increase in the GNP weight fraction,chain mobility becomes more restricted. This elucidates the change inthe failure type of PET nanocomposites, as discussed earlier for higherGNP weight fractions (above 2%). Similar observations have been reportedwith PET and high aspect ratio graphene at less than 2% weightfractions, wherein it was found that crystallization half-time decreaseduntil graphene loading less than 2% and started increasing at 2%.

Effect of Ultrasound Treatment on PET-Graphene Nanocomposites

Comparing the properties of nanocomposites prepared from twin-screw andultrasound-assisted compounding, presented in FIG. 38, helps inidentifying the best mixing approach. It was observed that theultrasound amplitudes of 5 μm and 7.5 μm showed the maximum improvementin terms of modulus. However, this improvement in modulus is notsignificantly different compared to nanocomposites from twin-screwcompounded material. This indicates that the ultrasound treatment didnot provide an advantage in improving the dispersion of graphenenanoplatelets. Molecular weight data for 5% graphene nanocompositepellets from both the process indicate a similar drop in the PET averagemolecular weight, as shown in FIG. 26. Additionally, it is observed thatthe presence of graphene increased the drop in molecular weight fromextrusion process. This could be due to the high thermal conductivity ofgraphene nanoplatelets, which allows faster heating of PET and causechain damage under regular heating conditions.

Rheology of the ultrasound treated nanocomposites showed similarbehavior as observed in ultrasound treated PET, illustrated in FIGS. 53and 54. The decrease in the shear modulus at high frequency is due tothe damage of the polymer chains (molecular weight) and the increase inthe shear modulus at lower frequency could be from an increase inentanglement from ultrasound treatment as well the presence of dispersedgraphene. Higher ultrasound amplitudes show lower shear modulus; thisindicates that there is better dispersion at higher amplitudes, which isalso evident from mechanical properties. However, for the 7.5 μmultrasound amplitude, the drop in molecular weight is higher compared toother amplitudes. Ultrasound-assisted dispersion of graphene has shown adifference in the thermal properties of the nanocomposites compared toregular twin-screw injection (for the same graphene weight fraction).Evaluating the glass transition temperature, crystallization half-time,and percent crystallinity, shown in FIGS. 47 and 49, point to bettergraphene dispersion at 7.5 μm ultrasound amplitude over otheramplitudes. The crystallization half-time of PET decreases with adecrease in the molecular weight; however dispersed graphene could bethe reason for the increase in half-time at 7.5 μm amplitude. Theseobservations along with the melt rheology data, shown in FIGS. 53 and54, suggest that an ultrasound amplitude of 7.5 μm is likely to haveimproved the dispersion of GNPs. However, this improvement in dispersionobserved from thermal analysis did not reflect in the mechanical data.

While preparing the tensile bars of ultrasound treated nanocomposites onthe micro injection molding system, the effect of mixing time on themechanical properties was investigated. Nanocomposite samples wereinjection molded for each of the following process times: 1 min, 2 minand 3 min. Modulus data, shown in FIG. 72, indicate that longer mixingtimes resulted in a decrease in the nanocomposite modulus. This could bedue to the damage of polymer with longer residence times.

Effect of Graphene Surface Area on PET Nanocomposite Properties.

In-situ polymerized PET nanocomposites suggest that the surface area ofthe graphene nanoplatelets can be a basis for the difference in thecrystallization behavior of PET. Coming to the mechanical properties ofthe nanocomposites, their difference is not significant enough to make aconclusion. Nanoplatelets dispersed through sonication will containplatelets of different dimensions, giving rise to a broad distributionof nanoplatelet aspect ratios, changing the average surface areaavailable. The application of a size selective approach, throughcentrifugation can help in understanding the effect of the nanoplateletsurface area.

As mentioned herein, one drawback for in-situ polymerization isachieving similar molecular weight polymer between different batches.This indicates that polymerization process is not alone sufficient forthe producing nanocomposites; application of secondary techniques suchas solid state polymerization can help in addressing the disparity inmolecular weights.

Effectiveness of Graphene as Reinforcement

The mechanical behavior of PET is dependent on the type ofcrystallinity: spherulitic and stretch crystallization. The modulus of aPET crystal was calculated to be 146 GPa, based on the deformation ofthe covalent bonds. One approach in improving the properties of PET isto increase its crystallinity from processing methods. PET film samplesobtained through biaxial stretching show 5.4 GPa at 45% crystallinity.Comparing that with the nanocomposites, the modulus for only 10% GNPweight fraction was 5.3 GPa. With a reinforcement that is 5.5 timesstiffer than a PET crystal, the improvement with GNP addition iscomparable to that of self-reinforced (stretch crystallized) PET. Forthe same biaxial stretched sample, when tested along the maximummolecular orientation the direction showed about a 9.1 GPa modulus. Thisindicates that inducing orientation to graphene nanoplatelets during theprocessing of nanocomposites could improve the properties further.

CONCLUSIONS

Poly(ethylene terephthalate)-graphene nanoplatelets (PET-GNP)nanocomposites have been demonstrated by way of injection molding. Asdescribed herein, the PET-GNP nanocomposites were evaluated fordispersion, mechanical, and thermal properties. Accordingly, the PET-GNPnanocomposites show an exponential improvement in Young's modulus,ranging between 8% for 0.5% GNP weight fraction and 224% for 15% GNPweight fraction, without affecting the strength of the PET. An additionof graphene nanoplatelets above 2% weight fraction was found to affectthe failure strain of PET. Further, the particular molding systemutilized plays a significant role in influencing the final properties ofthe nanocomposite. In particular, nanocomposites made by way of highspeed injection molding yield a relatively improved modulus.

As described herein, the master-batch method effectively disperses thenanoplatelets within the PET, with a lower GNP content yielding betterdispersion than higher GNP content master-batches. Ultrasound treatmentof PET generally increases its toughness, while providing a minimaleffect on molecular weight and no effect on Young's modulus. Twin-screwcompounding and ultrasound-assisted twin-screw compounding lead tosimilar improvements in Young's modulus. Moreover, PET-GNPnanocomposites obtained by way of twin-screw compounding exhibit a GNPinterparticle distance which decreases with increasing concentration. Inparticular, a 15% nanocomposite exhibits an average GNP interparticledistance of substantially 520 nm.

PET-GNP nanocomposites prepared by way of injection molding exhibit apreferential orientation of the GNPs in a flow direction to a depth ofsubstantially 200 μm below the mold surface. The depth of thepreferential orientation is dependent on a cooling rate of the PET-GNPnanocomposite. Further, a presence of GNPs affects crystallizationbehavior of PET, wherein crystallization temperature increases withadditional nucleation from graphene, and crystallization half-time(t_(1/2)) increases with increasing GNP content. The crystallinity ofPET generally is influenced by the rate of cooling, as well as an amountof stretching. Strain-induced crystallization is effective in improvingmechanical properties of PET as compared to thermally-inducedcrystallization. It will be appreciated, therefore, that graphenereinforcement may be optimized by increasing the nanoplatelet effectivesurface area and increasing the orientation of nanoplatelets along theflow direction.

While the invention has been described in terms of particular variationsand illustrative figures, those of ordinary skill in the art willrecognize that the invention is not limited to the variations or figuresdescribed. In addition, where methods and steps described above indicatecertain events occurring in certain order, those of ordinary skill inthe art will recognize that the ordering of certain steps may bemodified and that such modifications are in accordance with thevariations of the invention. Additionally, certain of the steps may beperformed concurrently in a parallel process when possible, as well asperformed sequentially as described above. To the extent there arevariations of the invention, which are within the spirit of thedisclosure or equivalent to the inventions found in the claims, it isthe intent that this patent will cover those variations as well.Therefore, the present disclosure is to be understood as not limited bythe specific embodiments described herein, but only by scope of theappended claims.

The invention claimed is:
 1. A method of preparing graphenenanoplatelets reinforced polyethylene terephthalate nanocomposites,comprising: compounding polyethylene terephthalate with dispersedgraphene nanoplatelets at a 5% weight fraction using anultrasound-assisted co-rotating twin screw micro-compounder equippedwith an ultrasound horn operating at 40 kHz so as to obtain one or moremaster-batch pellets, forming polyethylene terephthalate-graphenenanoplatelet nanocomposites; and wherein the ultrasound-assistedmaster-batch pellets have a polydispersity index ranging between 1.8 and1.9.
 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the ultrasound-assistedco-rotating twin screw micro-compounder process further comprises meltcompounding the polyethylene terephthalate-graphene nanoplatelets usingtwin-screw extrusion.
 3. The method of claim 1, wherein ultrasoundassisted co-rotating twin-screw micro-compounder process involvesapplying ultrasound waves to the polyethylene terephthalate-graphenenanoplatelets, wherein the ultrasound waves comprise ultrasoundamplitudes of 5 μm.
 4. The method of claim 1, wherein theultrasound-assisted co-rotating twin-screw micro-compounder involvesapplying ultrasound waves to the polyethylene terephthalate-graphenenanoplatelets, wherein the ultrasound waves comprise ultrasoundamplitudes of 7.5 μm.
 5. The method of claim 1, wherein the weightfractions of the dispersed graphene nanoplatelets result in animprovement in Young's modulus of the polyethyleneterephthalate-graphene nanoplatelets nanocomposites, while not affectingthe strength of the polyethylene terephthalate.
 6. The method of claim3, wherein the ultrasound-assisted co-rotating twin-screw micro-compoundincreases toughness of the polyethylene terephthalate with no effect onYoung's modulus of the polyethylene terephthalate-graphene nanoplateletsnanocomposites.